A) 


GIFT  OF 


'J^-J. 


■~.x-sz.?aer3s  sj*      , 


i 

L 


— rr?ii  r'lgTi 


iSb^SlW 


— rr»a 


—   -^-tJ 


K£ 


THE  BROSS  LIBRARY 

VOLUME    VII 


THE   BROSS   PRIZE,   1915 


THE 

MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION 

OF  THE  GOSPELS 

CRITICAL  STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORIC  NARRATIVES 


BY 
THOMAS  JAMES  THORBURN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


>    * 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1916 


Copyright,  1916,  by 

THE  TRUSTEES   OF   LAKE  FOREST  UNIVERSITY 
LAKE  FOREST,  ILLINOIS 


* 


TO 
THE  PRESIDENT,  TRUSTEES,  AND  FACULTY 

OF 

LAKE   FOREST  COLLEGE,  U.  S.  A. 

THIS     WORK     IS     GRATEFULLY    DEDICATED 

BY 
THE    AUTHOR 


342787 


Ov    7&p    <re<ro<pi<rfx£vois    fxidois    4^aKo\ovdi)(TavT€S 

iyvu)pl<ra/j.ev  v/xip  tt}v  tov  Kvpfov  Irjcrov  XpurToi) 

Svvap.iv    Kal  irapovciav,   dX\'    iirbirTai.   yevrjdtvres 

rrjs  iiceivov  iAeya\ei6T7iTos. 

— II  Peter  i :  16. 


THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION 

The  Bross  Library  is  an  outgrowth  of  a  fund  estab- 
lished in  1879  by  the  late  William  Bross,  lieutenant- 
governor  of  Illinois  from  1866  to  1870.  Desiring  some 
memorial  of  his  son,  Nathaniel  Bross,  who  died  in  1856, 
Mr.  Bross  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  "trustees 
of  Lake  Forest  University,"  whereby  there  was  finally 
transferred  to  them  the  sum  of  forty  thousand  dollars, 
the  income  of  which  was  to  accumulate  in  perpetuity 
for  successive  periods  of  ten  years,  the  accumulation  of 
one  decade  to  be  spent  in  the  following  decade,  for  the 
purpose  of  stimulating  the  best  books  or  treatises  "on  the 
connexion,  relation,  and  mutual  bearing  of  any  practi- 
cal science,  the  history  of  our  race,  or  the  facts  in  any 
department  of  knowledge,  with  and  upon  the  Christian 
Religion."  The  object  of  the  donor  was  to  "call  out  the 
best  efforts  of  the  highest  talent  and  the  ripest  scholar- 
ship of  the  world  to  illustrate  from  science,  or  from  any 
department  of  knowledge,  and  to  demonstrate  the  divine 
origin  and  the  authority  of  the  Christian  scriptures;  and, 
further,  to  show  how  both  science  and  revelation  coin- 
cide and  prove  the  existence,  the  providence,  or  any  or 
all  of  the  attributes  of  the  only  living  and  true  God,  l  in- 
finite, eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  his  being,  wisdom, 
power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth.'" 

The  gift  contemplated  in  the  original  agreement  of 
1879  was  finally  consummated  in  1890.  The  first  decade 
of  the  accumulation  of  interest  having  closed  in  1900, 
the  trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund  began  at  this  time  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  deed  of  gift.  It  was  deter- 
mined to  give  the  general  title  of  "The  Bross  Library" 

•  • 

vu 


viii  THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION 

to  the  series  of  books  purchased  and  published  with  the 
proceeds  of  the  Bross  Fund.  In  accordance  with  the 
express  wish  of  the  donor,  that  the  "  Evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity "  of  his  "very  dear  friend  and  teacher,  Mark 
Hopkins,  D.D.,"  be  purchased  and  "ever  numbered  and 
known  as  No.  i  of  the  series,"  the  trustees  secured  the 
copyright  of  this  work,  which  has  been  republished  in  a 
presentation  edition  as  Volume  I  of  the  Bross  Library. 

The  trust  agreement  prescribed  two  methods  by  which 
the  production  of  books  and  treatises  of  the  nature  con- 
templated by  the  donor  was  to  be  stimulated: 

i.  The  trustees  were  empowered  to  offer  one  or  more 
prizes  during  each  decade,  the  competition  for  which 
was  to  be  thrown  open  to  "the  scientific  men,  the  Chris- 
tian philosophers,  and  historians  of  all  nations."  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  provision,  a  prize  of  six  thousand  dol- 
lars was  offered  in  1902  for  the  best  book  fulfilling  the 
conditions  of  the  deed  of  gift,  the  competing  manuscripts 
to  be  presented  on  or  before  June  1,  1905.  The  prize 
was  awarded  to  the  late  Reverend  James  Orr,  D.D., 
professor  of  apologetics  and  systematic  theology  in  the 
United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow,  for  his  treatise  on 
"The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,"  which  was  pub- 
lished in  1906  as  Volume  III  of  the  Bross  Library. 

The  second  decennial  prize  of  six  thousand  dollars 
was  offered  in  19 13,  the  competing  manuscripts  to  be 
submitted  by  January  1,  191 5.  The  judges  were  Presi- 
dent William  Douglas  Mackenzie,  of  Hartford  Theo- 
logical Seminary;  Professor  Rufus  M.  Jones,  of  Hav- 
erford  College;  and  Professor  Benjamin  L.  Hobson, 
of  McCormick  Theological  Seminary.  The  prize  was 
awarded  by  the  judges  to  a  manuscript  entitled  "The 
Mythical  Interpretation  of  the  Gospels,"  whose  author 
proved  to  be  the  Reverend  Thomas  James  Thorburn, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  St.  Helen's  Down,  Hastings,  England.  This 
essay  is  now  issued  as  Volume  VII  of  the  Bross  Library. 


THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION  ix 

The  next  Bross  Prize  will  be  offered  about  1925,  and 
will  be  announced  in  due  time  by  the  trustees  of  Lake 
Forest  University. 

2.  The  trustees  were  also  empowered  to  "select  and 
designate  any  particular  scientific  man  or  Christian  phi- 
losopher and  the  subject  on  which  he  shall  write,"  and  to 
"agree  with  him  as  to  the  sum  he  shall  receive  for  the 
book  or  treatise  to  be  written."  Under  this  provision 
the  trustees  have,  from  time  to  time,  invited  eminent 
scholars  to  deliver  courses  of  lectures  before  Lake  Forest 
College,  such  courses  to  be  subsequently  published  as 
volumes  in  the  Bross  Library.  The  first  course  of  lec- 
tures, on  "Obligatory  Morality,"  was  delivered  in  May, 
1903,  by  the  Reverend  Francis  Landey  Patton,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  president  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 
The  copyright  of  the  lectures  is  now  the  property  of  the 
trustees  of  the  Bross  Fund.  The  second  course  of  lec- 
tures, on  "The  Bible:  Its  Origin  and  Nature,"  was  de- 
livered in  May,  1904,  by  the  late  Reverend  Marcus  Dods, 
D.D.,  professor  of  exegetical  theology  in  New  College, 
Edinburgh.  These  lectures  were  published  in  1905  as 
Volume  II  of  the  Bross  Library.  The  third  course  of 
lectures,  on  "The  Bible  of  Nature,"  was  delivered  in 
September  and  October,  1907,  by  J.  Arthur  Thomson, 
M.A.,  regius  professor  of  natural  history  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Aberdeen.  These  lectures  were  published  in 
1908  as  Volume  IV  of  the  Bross  Library.  The  fourth 
course  of  lectures,  on  "The  Religions  of  Modern  Syria 
and  Palestine,"  was  delivered  in  November  and  Decem- 
ber, 1908,  by  Frederick  Jones  Bliss,  Ph.D.,  of  Beirut, 
Syria.  These  lectures  were  published  in  191 2  as  Volume 
V  of  the  Bross  Library.  The  fifth  course  of  lectures,  on 
"The  Sources  of  Religious  Insight,"  was  delivered  in 
November,  191 1,  by  Professor  Josiah  Royce,  Ph.D.,  of 
Harvard  University.  These  lectures  were  published  in 
191 2   as  Volume  VI  of  the  Bross  Library.    The  sixth 


THE  BROSS  FOUNDATION 


course  of  lectures,  on  The  Will  to  Freedom,  or  the  Gos- 
pel of  Nietzsche  and  the  Gospel  of  Christ,"  was  delivered 
in  May,  191 5,  by  the  Reverend  John  Neville  Figgis,  D.D., 
LittD.,  of  the  House  of  the  Resurrection,  Mirfield,  Eng- 
land. These  lectures  will  be  published  as  Volume  VIII  of 
the  Bross  Library. 

John  Scholte  Nollen, 

President  of  Lake  Forest  College. 

Lake  Forest,  Illinois, 
January,  1916. 


PREFACE 

It  is  but  fitting  that  the  writer  of  this  volume  should 
introduce  his  work,  which  has  gained  the  Bross  Prize 
for  191 5,  with  an  expression  of  gratitude  to  the  memory 
of  the  founder  of  that  bequest,  to  the  present  trustees 
of  Lake  Forest  College,  and  also  to  the  judges  for  their 
courtesy  and  the  trouble  involved  in  dealing  with  the 
manuscript  submitted  for  their  consideration.  He  may 
add,  however,  that  the  work  was  not  commenced  with  a 
view  to  competing  for  the  Bross,  or  indeed  any,  prize; 
it  had  been  in  hand  for  about  two  years,  and  had  already 
progressed  considerably  towards  taking  a  final  shape, 
when  he  bethought  him  that,  perhaps,  it  might  be  a  suit- 
able book  for  the  purpose  which  the  late  William  Bross, 
formerly  lieutenant-governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  had 
in  view  when  he  established  the  trust. 

The  subject  of  this  treatise,  "The  Mythical  Interpre- 
tation of  the  Gospels/'  as  it  may  be  termed,  is,  it  should 
be  widely  known,  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  theory 
that  our  present  four  canonical  Gospels  are  in  no  sense 
whatever  what  we  nowadays  mean  by  the  term  "his- 
torical documents."  This  is,  in  truth,  a  most  serious 
proposition  to  fling  down  before  the  world  after  close 
upon  nineteen  centuries  of  Christian  teaching  which  has 
been  throughout  based  upon  the  contrary  affirmation. 
For,  if  any  such  theory  be  a  true  one,  and  can  be  so  es- 
tablished to  the  satisfaction  not  only  of  scholars  but  to 
that  of  the  world  at  large,  then  the  documents  referred 
to  must  be  in  effect  probably  nothing  more  than  a  mere 
congeries  of  ancient  nature-myths,  and  their  Central 
Figure  also  can  only  be  an  embodiment  of  one  or  more 

si 


xii  PREFACE 

of  the  various  cult-gods  or  nature-spirits  (demons)  with 
which  the  imagination  of  the  ancient  races  who  formerly- 
dwelt  in  the  southern  parts  of  western  Asia  and  east- 
ern Europe,  with  Egypt  and  Arabia,  peopled  those  lands 
for  many  centuries  before  and  subsequent  to  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

The  subject,  the  present  writer  repeats,  is  one  of  the 
utmost  importance  when  viewed  from  the  religious  stand- 
point; and  it  has  hitherto,  in  his  opinion,  been  some- 
what too  hastily  set  aside  without  examination,  and  even 
quietly  snubbed  by  critical  as  well  as  by  dogmatic  the- 
ologians. It  is  not  thus  that  any  theory,  however  wrong- 
headed  it  may  be,  is  checked,  nor  by  these  means  are 
genuine  seekers  after  truth  ever  convinced  of  its  errors. 
On  the  contrary,  such  theories  and  assertions  should  be 
challenged  freely  and  criticised,  and  their  mistakes  and 
assumptions  frankly  and  systematically  pointed  out. 

After  making  the  above  prefatory  statement,  it  may 
not  be  inopportune  or  superfluous  here  to  give,  for  the 
benefit  of  such  readers  to  whom  it  will  be  welcome,  a 
brief  sketch  of  the  chief  mythical  and  non-historical  ex- 
planations of  the  origin  and  nature  of  Christianity  which 
have  been  put  forth  from  time  to  time  during  the  period 
covered  by  the  past  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 

Previously  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
mythical  hypothesis  of  Christianity  was,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  wholly  unknown.  Going  still  further  back,  in 
the  earlier  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  we  find  the  va- 
rious fathers  of  the  church  and  other  contemporary  wri- 
ters, secular  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  distinguishing  most 
carefully  and  emphatically  the  historical  Gospel  narra- 
tives, as  they  had  received  or  examined  them,  and  above 
all  the  personality  of  Jesus  Christ,  from  the  nature- 
myths  and  the  deities  of  various  classes  and  grades, 
whether  Olympic  gods  or  cultual  nature-spirits  (demons), 
which  were  held  in  awe  or  honour  by  the  peoples  in  whose 


PREFACE  xiii 

very  midst  Christianity  had  but  recently  been  introduced 
and  established.  This  is,  indeed,  an  indisputable  and 
accepted  fact. 

Much  the  same,  too,  may  be  said  of  the  Jewish  rabbins 
and  others  who  contributed  to  that  body  of  authorita- 
tive Jewish  teaching,  mingled  with  fact  and  fancy,  which 
at  an  early  period  took  shape  and  became  known  as  the 
two  Talmuds.  To  the  Christian  fathers  and  the  Jewish 
rabbins  alike  both  Jesus  Christ  and  the  records  of  his 
life  and  teaching  had  an  undoubted  historical  basis. 
Even  his  miracles  were  in  general  admitted  by  the  Jews, 
but  were  attributed  by  them  either  to  the  agency  of  de- 
mons or  to  the  magical  arts  which  he  was  supposed  to 
have  learned  in,  and  brought  from,  Egypt.  Neither  early 
Christian  nor  Jew  of  any  period  felt  the  smallest  doubt 
as  to  the  historic  character  of  either  Christianity  or  its 
Founder,  whilst  even  the  pagan  Romans  and  Greeks  al- 
ways refer  to  both  in  professedly  historic  terms.  In- 
deed, the  educated  Gentiles  of  all  races  included  within 
the  Roman  Empire  of  that  period  regarded  the  Christian 
system  as  wholly  unlike,  and  in  every  respect  totally 
opposed  to,  the  stories  told  of  the  cult-gods  and  divine 
heroes  of  their  myths.  These  three  primary  facts  are 
beyond  dispute,  and  all  three  taken  together  form,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  a  great  and  a  priori 
obstacle  to  any  modern  scheme  that  can  be  devised  for 
the  mythicising  of  the  story  of  the  Christian  religion  or 
the  person  of  its  Founder. 

With  the  period  of  the  great  French  Revolution,  at 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  great  change  was 
obviously  impending.  Its  advent  was  heralded  by  the 
publication,  in  1794,  of  the  notorious  work  of  Charles 
Francois  Dupuis  (1 742-1809),  entitled  Vorigine  de  tons 
les  Cultes,  ou  la  Religion  Universelle,  which  had  followed 
close  upon  Volney's  Les  Ruines,  ou  Meditation  sur  les 
Revolutions  des  Empires,  a  thinly  veiled  and  dilettante 


xiv  PREFACE 

attack  upon  all  religion,  and  especially  upon  the  histor- 
ical character  and  evidences  of  Christianity.  In  the  work 
of  Dupuis  all  primitive  religion  is  connected  with  a  sys- 
tem of  astral  mythology,  and  the  origin  of  astral  myths 
is  traced  to  Upper  Egypt.  This  book  excited  some  in- 
terest at  the  time  of  its  publication,  though  it  had  only 
a  small  sale;  it  is  said,  however,  to  have  been  largely 
instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  expedition  organised 
by  Napoleon  Bonaparte  for  the  exploration,  or  exploita- 
tion, of  that  country.  Regarding  this  book,  it  will  suffice 
here  to  say  that  a  distinguished  modern  astronomer1  has 
(March  20,  19 14)  informed  the  present  writer  that  Du- 
puis's  "method  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  the  con- 
stellations must  have  been  devised  when  the  sun  was  in 
the  constellation  Aries  at  the  autumnal  equinox,  i.  e., 
about  13000  B.  C.  The  evidence  afforded  by  the  un- 
mapped space  round  the  south  pole  proves  that  he  was 
ten  or  eleven  thousand  years  wrong;  in  other  words, 
nearly  as  wrong  as  he  could  be"!2  Any  system  which 
is  based  upon  such  a  huge  and  primary  error  as  this 
stands  self-condemned  at  the  outset. 

The  method  of  Dupuis  soon  fell  into  disrepute,  but  in 
spite  of  this  fact  it  has  been  revived  in  our  own  day  in  a 
somewhat  modified  form  by  certain  modern  mythicists, 
notably  A.  Niemojewski  {Bog  Jezus,  1909,  and  Gott  Jezus 
im  Lichte  fremder  und  eigener  Forschungen,  saint  Darstel- 
lung  der  evangelischen  Astralstojfe,  Astralszenen,  und  Astral- 
systeme,  1910)  and  Fuhrmann  (Der  Astralmyihen  von 
Christus),  who  have  used  this  once  much- vaunted  "key" 
to  the  origin  of  religions  in  a  manner  regardless  not  only 
of  astronomical  facts  but  even,  at  times,  of  common  sense. 

With  the  downfall,  in  the  early  nineteenth  century, 
of  the  astral  theory  of  Dupuis,  which  in  speculative 
theology  was  largely  superseded  by  the  unimaginative 

1  Mr.  E.  Walter  Maunder,  F.R.A.S. 

2  See  also  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  nth  ed.,  art.  "Dupuis." 


PREFACE  xv 

rationalism  of  Paulus  (1761-1851),  the  next  generation 
were  confronted  with  a  revival  of  the  mythic  theory  in 
a  new  and  improved  form.  David  Friedrich  Strauss 
(1808-74)  issued  in  1835-6  his  famous  work,  Das  Leben 
Jesu,  based  to  a  great  extent  upon  the  dialectical  method 
of  the  then  fashionable  Hegelian  idealistic  philosophy, 
in  which,  while  he  acknowledged  the  actual  existence  of 
an  historical  Jesus  who  formed  the  subject  of  the  Gospel 
memoirs,  Strauss  maintained  had  had  such  a  complete 
halo  of  myth  thrown  around  him  that  for  all  practical 
purposes  his  life  was  entirely  unknown  to  us.  This  work 
created  a  great  sensation  almost  throughout  Europe, 
and  a  fourth  edition  of  it,  translated  by  George  Eliot, 
appeared  in  England  in  a  popular  form  under  the  Eng- 
lish title  of  The  Life  of  Jesus  Critically  Examined  (1846). 
Finally  the  work  was  entirely  recast  and  rewritten  as 
Das  Leben  Jesu  fur  das  Deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet  (1865);  in 
this  new  form  Strauss  declared  that  he  viewed  the  Gospel 
stories  rather  as  conscious  inventions  than  as  poetic  myths, 
as  he  had  maintained  in  the  original  Das  Leben  Jesu, 

This  non-historical  and  later  view  of  the  Gospel  rec- 
ords and  the  person  of  Jesus  was  next  taken  up  by  Bruno 
Bauer  (1809-82),  a  critic  belonging,  like  Strauss,  in  the 
earlier  part  of  his  career,  to  the  Hegelian  "Left  Wing,,, 
and  who  differed  from  Strauss  chiefly  in  denying  that 
the  Judaism  antecedent  to  the  rise  of  Christianity  har- 
boured any  potent  Messianic  expectations.  The  Messiah, 
Bauer  maintained  (Kritik  der  Evangelischen  Geschichte  der 
Synoptiker,  1841),  was  the  product  of  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness, and  was  rather  carried  back  from  the  Chris- 
tian system  into  that  of  Judaism  than  borrowed  by  the 
former  from  the  latter  source.  As  for  the  Gospels,  they 
were,  he  thought,  abstract  conceptions  turned  into  his- 
tory, probably  by  one  man — the  evangelist  Mark. 

Before,  however,  dismissing  Jesus  as  a  wholly  fictitious 
character  in  history,  Bauer  decided  to  make  a  further 


xvi  PREFACE 

critical  examination  of  the  structure  and  contents  of  the 
Pauline  epistles  (Kritik  der  Paulinischen  Brief e,  1850-1). 
As  an  outcome  of  these  combined  investigations  he  at 
last  decided  that  an  historical  Jesus  never  existed — a 
result  little,  if  at  all,  removed  from  the  final  conclusions 
of  Strauss. 

With  the  death  of  Bauer  the  mythical  hypothesis  may 
be  said  to  have  entered  upon  a  new  phase.  In  1882  Rudolf 
Seydel  published  his  Das  Evangelium  von  Jesu  in  seinen 
Verhaltnissen  zur  Buddha-Sage  und  Buddha-Lehre,  which 
was  followed  not  long  afterwards  by  his  Die  Buddha- 
Legende  und  das  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  Evangelien  (2d  ed., 
1897),  and  Buddha  und  Christus  (1884),  in  which  the 
avowed  object  was  to  demonstrate  that  the  life  of  Jesus, 
as  related  by  the  compilers  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  was 
almost  wholly  derived  from  similar  anecdotes  related  of 
the  Buddha  in  Buddhist  legend  and  myth.  The  reader 
of  the  present  book  will  find  the  greater  number  of  these 
stories  quoted  and  compared  with  their  (so-called)  Chris- 
tian " parallels"  and  " derivatives."  This  theory  had 
been,  however,  already  effectively  criticised  by  Bousset 
in  the  Theologische  Rundschau  for  February,  1889. 

At  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century  another  Ori- 
ental " source"  was  proposed  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson 
(Christianity  and  Mythology,  1900;  Pagan  Christs:  Stud- 
ies in  Comparative  Hierology,  1903,  2d  ed.,  191 2).  This 
author,  whose  excursions  into  the  field  of  theology  all 
bear  the  marks  of  great  haste  and  extreme  recklessness 
of  statement,  has  been  very  largely  dealt  with  in  the  pres- 
ent volume.  It  will  suffice,  therefore,  to  add  here  that 
he  traces  the  portrait  of  Jesus,  as  drawn  by  the  synoptic 
writers,  to  a  syncretism  of  mythological  elements  de- 
rived primarily,  perhaps,  from  early  Hebraic  tradition 
and  myth  combined  (later  on)  with  various  pagan  myths, 
European  as  well  as  Asiatic,  and  especially  the  stories 
told  about  the  early  life  of  Krishna  and,  in  some  cases, 


PREFACE  xvii 

those  recorded  of  the  Buddha.  Indeed,  the  idea  con- 
tained in  the  story  of  Jesus  is,  in  the  main,  for  him,  very 
largely  a  recension  of  the  myth  of  an  old  Ephraimitic 
sun-god  "  Joshua,"  which,  when  historicised,  gave  rise  to 
a  legend  regarding  a  northern  Israelite  Messiah,  Joshua 
ben  Joseph. 

This  last-mentioned  view  of  Christianity  and  its 
Founder,  again,  does  not  differ  very  greatly  from  that  of 
Professor  W.  B.  Smith,  of  Tulane  University,  New  Or- 
leans, U.  S.  A.,  who  (Der  Vorchristliche  Jesus,  1906)  de- 
rives the  " Christ-myth"  from  certain  alleged  " Jesus- 
cults,"  dating  from  pre-Christian  times.  Jesus  is,  he 
thinks,  the  name  of  an  ancient  Western  Semitic  cult-god, 
and  he  finds  a  reference  to  the  doctrines  held  by  the 
devotees  of  this  deity  in  Acts  18  :  25.  He  also  further 
maintains  that  " Nazareth"  was  not  in  pre-Christian 
times  the  name  of  a  village  in  Galilee  (since  no  such 
,  village  then  existed),  but  is  a  corruption  of  Nazaraios 
(Nafo/wuos),  meaning  " guardian"  or  "saviour" — a  word 
identical  in  its  signification  with  "Jesus,"  the  name  of 
this  ancient  cult-god.  "Christ,"  also,  in  like  manner  has 
reference  to  the  same  deity,  for  X/Montfc  is  equatable  with 
Xpyvrfc,  found  in  the  LXX  version  of  Psalm  34  :  8. 

The  above  views  Professor  Smith  subsequently  devel- 
oped more  fully  in  a  later  work  (Ecce  Deus,  191 2),  in 
which  he  maintains,  contrary  to  the  commonly  accepted 
view,  that  Jesus  is  presented  by  the  evangelist  Mark 
wholly  as  a  god  (*.  e.,  a  cult-deity)  in  an  anthropomorphic 
guise. 

We  may,  perhaps,  here  also  briefly  note  another  vari- 
ant form  of  the  mythical  theory  which  has  been  pro- 
posed by  the  German  Assyriologist,  P.  Jensen. 

Doctor  Jensen  states  (Das  Gilgamesch-epos  in  der  Welt- 
literatur,  1906;  Moses,  Jesus,  Paulus:  drei  Varianten  des 
Babylonischen  Gottmenschen  Gilgamesch,  1909;  Hat  der 
Jesus  der  Evangelien  wirklich  gelebt?  19 10)  that  Jesus  may 


xviii  PREFACE 

be  identified  with  not  merely  one  but  several  of  the  myth- 
ical heroes  in  the  Babylonian  Gilgamesh  epic,  and  a  series 
of  so-called  parallels  found  in  that  work  and  the  Gospels 
are  set  forth  in  his  Moses,  Jesus,  Paulus,  as  establishing 
the  truth  of  his  thesis.  His  theory,  however,  has  been 
rejected  by  the  almost  unanimous  consent  of  scholars, 
and  one  American  theologian  has  even  gone  so  far  as  to 
pronounce  the  whole  hypothesis  "  elaborate  bosh.'' 

But  the  hypothesis  of  the  mythical  origin  and  nature 
of  Christianity  and  the  unhistorical  character  of  the  Gos- 
pel narratives  reaches  its  culminating  point  in  two  re- 
cent works  of  Professor  Drews,  of  Karlsruhe,  who,  aban- 
doning for  a  time  the  exposition  of  philosophy,  appears  as 
the  strenuous  advocate  of  a  mythical  Christianity  (Die 
Christusmythe,  1910,  English  translation  The  Christ  Myth; 
and  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,1 191 2).  His 
method  and  conclusions  may  be  briefly  summarised  as 
follows:  From  Robertson  and  W.  B.  Smith  he  borrows 
the  general  mythical  view  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  and 
in  particular  the  identification  of  Jesus  with  an  ancient  He- 
brew cult-deity,  Joshua,  and  an  old  Greek  divine  healer- 
hero,  Jason — equating  Jason  =  Joshua  =  Jesus  (Joshua 
forming  the  intermediate  link)  as  all  representing  the 
sun. 

Further,  from  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  he  adopts  the 
theory  that  the  members  of  these  cults  had  been  termed 
"Nazoraeans"  (Nazaraioi).  Christianity,  he  maintains, 
is  primarily  and  mainly  a  syncretism  of  these  elements 
together  with  (orthodox)  Jewish  Messianism  plus  the  pa- 
gan (Greco-Roman,  etc.)  idea  of  a  "redeemer-god,"  who 
annually  "dies"  and  "rises,"  and  thereby  promotes  the 
welfare  of  mankind.  This  synthesis,  he  thinks,  was  ef- 
fected in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul,  who  "knew  no  historical 
Jesus"  (II  Cor.  5  :  16).  This  explains,  he  surmises,  the 
great  change  which  took  place  in  the  views  and  actions 

1  An  amended  version  of  the  second  part  of  The  Christ  Myth. 


PREFACE  xix 

of  St.  Paul.  At  first,  he  says,  Paul,  as  a  legalist,  vio- 
lently opposed  the  gospel  because  the  law  pronounced 
cursed  every  one  who  had  been  " hanged  upon  a  tree." 
But  suddenly  he  became  "  enlightened/ '  and  a  reconcili- 
ation became  possible.  He  found  that  he  could  combine 
the  idea  of  the  expected  and  orthodox  Jewish  Messiah  of 
the  first  century  with  the  older  and  self-sacrificing  god  of 
the  ethnic  nature-cults,  which  latter  were  closely  akin  to 
the  pre-Christian  Joshua  or  Jesus  cults.  "This,"  con- 
cludes Professor  Drews,  "was  the  moment  of  Christian- 
ity's birth  as  a  religion  of  Paul."  l 

To  sum  up:  Professor  Drews  has  himself  stated  his 
position  in  the  following  terms:  The  Gospels  do  not 
contain  the  history  of  an  actual  man,  but  only  the  myth 
of  the  god-man  Jesus  clothed  in  an  historical  dress. 
Further,  such  important,  and  for  religious  purposes  sig- 
nificant, events  in  the  Gospels  as  the  Baptism,  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  Crucifixion,  and  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  are 
all  borrowed  by  St.  Paul  from  the  cult-worship  of  the 
mythical  Jesus,  being  embodied  in  ancient  and  pre- 
Christian  systems  of  religious  ritual. 

Yet  further:  The  "historical  Jesus"  of  modern  crit- 
ical theology  has  now  become  so  vague  and  doubtful  a 
figure  in  both  religion  and  history  that  he  can  no  longer 
be  regarded  as  the  absolutely  indispensable  condition  of 
salvation.  Doctor  Drews  likewise  believes  that  his  own 
works  are  written  in  the  true  interests  of  religion,  for 
which  ideas  alone — not  personalities — have  value,  and, 
by  reason  of  his  convictions,  that  the  forms  of  Christian- 
ity which  have  hitherto  prevailed  are  no  longer  sufficient 
for  modern  needs.  Not  the  historical  Jesus,  he  urges,  but 
Christ  as  an  idea — as  an  idea  of  the  divine  humanity — 
must  henceforth  be  the  ground  of  religion.  And  he  adds 
that  "when  we  can  and  will  no  longer  believe  on  acci- 

1  We  have  here  an  example  of  the  application  of  the  three  "moments" 
of  the  Hegelian  dialectic — thesis,  antithesis,  synthesis ;  see  Hegel's  Logic. 


xx  PREFACE 

dental  [ !  ]  personalities,  we  can  and  must  believe  on 
ideas."  1 

It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  deal  with  this  complex 
mass  of  crude  theories,  suppositions,  and  assumptions, 
but  we  may,  perhaps,  in  this  place  appropriately  quote 
the  apposite  remarks  thereupon  of  Doctor  A.  Schweitzer 
(Paul  and  His  Interpreters,  pp.  193  and  239):  "In  par- 
ticular, these  [mythical]  works  aim  at  getting  hold  of  the 
idea  of  a  Greek  redeemer-god  who  might  serve  as  an 
analogue  to  Jesus  Christ.  No  figure  of  this  designation 
occurs  in  any  myth  or  in  any  mystery  religion;  it  is  cre- 
ated by  a  process  of  generalisation,  abstraction,  and  re- 
construction." 

Again:  " These  writers  make  a  rather  extravagant  use 
of  the  privilege  of  standing  outside  the  ranks  of  scien- 
tific theology.  Their  imagination  leaps  with  playful  ele- 
gance over  obstacles  of  fact,  and  enables  them  to  dis- 
cover everywhere  the  pre-Christian  Jesus  whom  their 
souls  desire,  even  in  places  where  an  ordinary  intelli- 
gence can  find  no  trace  of  it."  2 

This  is  true;  and  it  is  also  true  that  any  discussion  of 
a  general  nature  which  may  be  carried  on  with  reference 
to  these  "generalisations,  abstractions,  and  reconstruc- 
tions" is  seldom  a  fruitful  one.  Let  us,  therefore,  put  the 
results  of  the  above  mental  operations  to  a  more  con- 
crete test,  viz.,  that  of  an  actual  comparative  study  in 
detail.  In  other  words,  let  us  analyse  and  compare  care- 
fully the  stories  told  by  the  evangelists  with  the  mythic 
episodes  from  which  the  former  are  said  to  be  derived, 
or  which  they  are  confidently  stated  to  resemble.  If 
they  fail  in  this  final  and  supreme  test,  then  we  may 
safely  dismiss  the  whole  theory  of  the  mythical  interpre- 
tation of  the  Gospels,  with  its  "generalisations,  abstrac- 

1  See  the  Berliner  Religions gesprach,  1910,  pp.  94/.;  and  cf.  Die  Christus- 
mythe,  p.  xi. 

2  See  also  Doctor  F.  C.  Conybeare,  The  Historical  Christ,  p.  29. 


PREFACE  xxi 

tions,  and  reconstructions,"  as  an  interesting  but  empty 
dream.  This  is,  indeed,  the  practical  and  only  true 
method  of  testing  all  theories  in  almost  every  depart- 
ment of  knowledge,  and  it  is  the  one  which  the  present 
writer  has  endeavoured  to  set  before  his  readers  in  the 
following  pages. 

Further,  the  author  wishes  to  express  his  great  obliga- 
tions and  sincere  thanks  to  a  number  of  eminent  scholars 
who  have  kindly  furnished  him  with  expert  information 
upon  various  special  or  obscure  points  where  his  own 
knowledge  was  either  wanting  or  defective.  Amongst 
these  the  following  gentlemen  may  be  specially  men- 
tioned: Doctor  E.  M.  Wallis  Budge,  keeper  of  the  As- 
syrian and  Egyptian  antiquities  in  the  British  Museum, 
London;  Doctor  A.  A.  Macdonell,  Boden  professor  of 
Sanscrit  in  the  University  of  Oxford;  Doctor  L.  H. 
Mills,  professor  of  Zend  philology  in  Oxford  University; 
and  Doctor  W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie,  F.R.S.,  F.B.A.,  Ed- 
wards professor  of  Egyptology  in  University  College, 
London  University.  His  friend  the  Reverend  F.  B.  Alli- 
son, M.A.,  F.R.A.S.,  formerly  fellow  of  Sidney  Sussex 
College,  Cambridge,  and  E.  Walter  Maunder,  Esq., 
F.R.A.S.,  late  superintendent  of  the  Solar  Department 
in  the  Royal  Observatory,  Greenwich,  also  gave  him 
valuable  assistance  on  astronomical  questions,  which  he 
acknowledges  with  gratitude. 

Finally,  the  author's  thanks  are  due  to  his  son,  Charles 
E.  A.  Thorburn,  for  his  kindness  in  typing  the  three 
copies  of  the  original  manuscript  which  were  required  by 
the  conditions  of  the  trust. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    Mary  and  Joseph 3 

II.    The  Annunciation,  Conception,  and  Birth   .     .       24 

III.  The  Narratives  of  the  Infancy  and  Childhood      43 

IV.  Jesus.    Christ.    Pre-Christian  Christ  and  Jesus 

Cults 63 

V.  Bethlehem.   Nazareth  and  the  Nazarean. 

Galilee 89 

VI.    The  Baptism        no 

VII.    The  Temptation 133 

VIII.    The  Transfiguration 154 

IX.    The  Entry  into  Jerusalem  and  the  Expulsion 

of  the  Traders 167 

X.    The  Eucharist  and  the  Mystery-Cults  .     .     .     178 

XI.     Gethsemane.    The  Betrayal  and  Arrest.    The 

Young  Man  Who  Fled  Away  Naked     .     .     .     20S 

XII.    The  Trials.    Peter.    Pilate.    Lithostroton-Gab- 

batha.    Annas  and  Caiaphas 228 

XIII.  Judas  Iscariot  and  [Jesus?]  Barabbas      .     .     .     248 

XIV.  The  Mockery  of  Jesus.    Simon  of  Cyrene.    Gol- 

gotha and  the  Phallic  Cones.    The  Cross  and 
Its    Astral    Significance.    The    Crucifixion. 

The  Burial  in  the  New  Tomb 270 

xxiii 


xxiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XV.    The  Descension  to  Hades.    The  Resurrection 

and  Ascension  to  Heaven 302 

Appendices: 

a.  the   dates    of  the  birth   and  death  of 

jesus  christ 331 

b.  agni  and  agnus 335 

c.  the  " astral  drama "  of  the  crucifixion.     338 

Index 347 


THE  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION 
OF  THE  GOSPELS 


The  Mythical  Interpretation  of 

the  Gospels 


CHAPTER  I 

MARY  AND  JOSEPH 

It  is  an  almost  primary  necessity  of  every  theory  of 
a  mythical  interpretation  of  the  Gospels  to  demonstrate 
that  Mary  and  Joseph  are  ancient  deities,  the  former  in 
particular  being  identical  with  the  mother-divinities  of 
the  pagan  nature-cults,  who  were  worshipped  under  one 
form  or  another,  and  under  different  names,  by  the  vari- 
ous nations  and  races  which  occupied  the  countries  situ- 
ated round  about  the  eastern  end  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea.1  We  will,  therefore,  begin  our  study  of  this  complex 
question  with  the  statements  of  this  thesis  as  they  are 
set  forth  by  two  of  the  leading  exponents  of  the  theory, 
and  for  the  most  part  in  their  own  words. 

"The  whole  birth-story,"  writes  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson 
{Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  319),  "is  indisputably 
late,  and  the  whole  action  mythic;  and  the  name  [Mary] 
is  also  to  be  presumed  mythical.  For  this  there  is  the 
double  reason  that  Mary,  or  Miriam,  was  already  a 
mythic  name  for  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  Miriam 
of  Exodus  is  no  more  historical  than  Moses;  like  him 
and  Joshua  she  is  to  be  reckoned  an  ancient  deity  evem- 
erised,  and  the  Arab  tradition  that  she  was  the  mother  of 
Joshua  (= Jesus)  raises  an  irremovable  surmise  that  a 

1  Similarly,  the  patriarch  Joseph  is  regarded  by  Doctor  Winckler  and 
others  as  a  form  of  the  sun-god. 

3 


4    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  may  have  been  worshipped 
in  Syria  long  before  our  era." 

But  Mr.  Robertson  further  continues:  "It  is  not  pos- 
sible, from  the  existing  data,  to  connect  historically  such 
a  cult  with  its  congeners;  but  the  mere  analogy  of  names 
and  epithets  goes  far.  The  mother  of  Adonis,  the  slain 
'Lord'  of  the  great  Syrian  cult,  is  Myrrha;  and  Myrrha, 
in  one  of  her  myths,  is  the  weeping  tree1  from  which  the 
babe  Adonis  is  born.  Again,  Hermes,  the  Greek  Logos, 
has  for  mother  Maia,  whose  name  has  further  connex- 
ion with  Mary.  In  one  myth  Maia  is  the  daughter  of 
Atlas  (Apollod.,  Ill,  10,  2),  thus  doubling  with  Maira, 
who  has  the  same  father  (Paus.,  VIII,  48)  and  who,  hav- 
ing died  a  virgin  (ibid.,  X,  30),  was  seen  by  Odysseus  in 
Hades.  Mythologically,  Maira  is  identified  with  the  dog- 
star,  which  is  the  star  of  Isis. 

"  Yet  again,  the  name  appears  in  the  East  as  Maya,  the 
virgin  mother  of  the  Buddha,  and  it  is  remarkable  that, 
according  to  a  Jewish  legend,  the  name  of  the  Egyptian 
princess  who  found  the  babe  Moses  was  Merris  (Euseb., 
Prcep.  Evan.,  IX,  27).  The  plot  is  still  further  thick- 
ened by  the  fact  that,  as  we  learn  from  the  monuments, 
one  of  the  daughters  of  Rameses  II  was  named  Meri 
(Brugsch.,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  II,  p.  117)." 

Further:  "In  the  matter  of  names,  it  is  of  some  though 
minor  interest  to  recall  that  Demeter  is  associated  in 
Greek  mythology  with  one  Jasios,  or  Jasion,  not  as 
mother  but  as  lover  (Od.,  V,  125;  Hesiod,  Theog.,  960). 
Jason,  as  we  know,  actually  served  as  a  Greek  form  of 
the  name  Joshua,  or  Jesous  (Jos.,  Ant.,  XII,  5,  1);  and 
Jasion,  who  in  one  story  is  the  founder  of  the  famous 
Samothracian  mysteries  (Preller,  Griech.  Myth.,  I,  667), 
is,  in  the  ordinary  myth,  slain  by  Zeus.  But  the  partial 
parallel  of  his  name  is  of  less  importance  than  the  possible 
parallel  of  his  mythical  relation  to  the  goddess-mother. 

1  /.  e.,  it  exudes  a  resinous  gum.    See  cr^ppa  (Greek  lexicon). 


MARY  AND  JOSEPH  5 

"In  many  if  not  all  of  the  cults  in  which  there  figures 
a  nursing  mother,  it  is  found  that  her  name  signifies  the 
nurse,1  or  that  becomes  one  of  her  epithets.  Thus,  Maia 
stands  for  'the  nurse,'  Tpo<f>6s  (Porphyr.,  De  Abstin.,  IV, 
16);  Mylitta  means  the  child-bearing  one  (Bahr,  Syrn- 
bolik  des  mosaisch.  Cult.,  I,  436);  both  Demeter  and  Ar- 
temis were  styled  child-rearers,  and  Isis  was  alternately 
styled  'the  nurse'  and  'the  mother'  (Prut,  De  Is.  et 
Osir.,  53,  56).2 

"Now  one  of  the  most  important  details  of  the  con- 
fused legend  in  the  Talmud  concerning  the  pre-Christian 
[?  ]  Jesus  Ben  Pandira,  who  is  conjoined  with  Ben  Stada,3 
is  that  the  mother  is  in  one  place  named  Miriam  Mag- 
dala,  Mary  the  nurse,  or  the  hair-dresser  (Jastrow,  Diet. 
of  the  Targ.  and  the  Midr.  Lit.,  part  2,  p.  213,  1888). 
As  Isis,  too,  plays  the  part  of  a  hair-dresser  (Plut.,  De 
Is.  et  Osir.,  15),4  it  seems  clear  that  we  are  dealing  here 
also  with  myth,  not  with  biography.  In  the  Gospels  we 
have  Mary  the  Magdalene,  that  is,  of  the  supposed  place 
Magdala,  which  Jesus  in  one  text  (Matt.  15  :  39,  A.  V.) 
visits.  But  Magdala  at  most  simply  means  'a  tower,'  or 
'high  place'  (the  same  root  yielding  the  various  senses  of 
nursing,  rearing,  and  hair-dressing);  and,  in  the  revised 
text,  Magdala  gives  way  to  Magadan,  thus  disappear- 

1  So  (in  Homer)  /xaia  applied,  in  familiar  sense,  to  old  women,  "  mother." 

2  Plutarch  says  (53)  that  Isis  is  the  female  principle  of  nature,  and  is, 
therefore,  styled  by  Plato  the  "Nurse"  and  "All-receiving";  but,  by  the 
generality  of  mankind,  the  "  One  of  numberless  names."  In  56  he  further 
remarks  that  Plato  calls  matter  "mother"  and  "nurse,"  while  idea  is  termed 
"father."  This  is  not  quite  the  same  thing  as  the  above.  Isis,  however,  was 
a  special  form  of  the  great  Mater  Nutrix,  though  it  is  not  directly  so  stated 
here. 

3  It  is  highly  uncertain  whether  these  "  Jesuses"  are  one  and  the  same  or 
not.     Mr.  Robertson  is  making  an  assumption  here. 

4  Plutarch,  again,  says  here  that  Isis,  having  come  to  Byblus,  made  friends 
with  the  servants  of  the  queen  of  that  place  by  dressing  their  hair  for  them. 
This  is  hardly  being  a  professional  hair-dresser,  as  implied  above,  and 
savours  somewhat  of  special  pleading.  Moreover,  there  is  a  confusion  of 
Marys. 


6    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ing  entirely  from  the  Gospels.  There  is  no  documentary 
trace  of  it  save  as  a  citadel  so  named  by  Josephus. 

"Mary  Magdalene,  finally,  plays  in  the  Gospels  a 
purely  mythical  part,  that  of  one  of  the  finders  of  the 
risen  Lord.  The  interpolated  text  in  Luke  (8  :  2)  baldly 
describing  her  as  having  seven  devils  cast  out  of  her 
by  Jesus  is  equally  remote  from  history;  but  it  points 
towards  the  probable  mythic  solution.  Maria,  the  Mag- 
dalene, who  in  the  post-evangelical  myth  becomes  a  pen- 
itent harlot,  is  probably  cognate  with  the  evemerised 
Miriam  of  the  Mosaic  myth,  who  is  morally  possessed 
by  devils  [ !  ],  and  is  expressly  punished  for  her  sin  before 
being  forgiven.  Something  else,  evidently,  has  under- 
lain the  pseudo-historical  tale;  and  the  Talmudic  refer- 
ence, instead  of  being  a  fiction  based  on  the  scanty  data 
in  the  Gospels,  is  presumptively  an  echo  of  a  mythic 
tradition,  which  may  be  the  real  source  of  the  Gospel 
allusions.  In  Jewry  the  profession  of  hair-dressing  seems 
to  have  been  identified  with  that  of  hetaira  [courtesan], 
the  character  ultimately  ascribed  in  Christian  legend  to 
Mary  Magdalene." 

Thus  far  Mr.  Robertson.  The  remainder  of  his  section 
on  the  "Mythic  Maries"  deals  chiefly  with  the  rdle,  in 
which  he  thinks  they  figure  in  finding  the  risen  Saviour, 
and  which,  in  his  view,  is  comparable  to  the  parts  played 
by  the  various  representatives  of  the  mother-goddess. 

This  thesis  of  Mr.  Robertson  is  practically  accepted  in 
its  entirety  by  Professor  Drews,  who  says  (The  Christ 
Myth,  p.  239):  "That  the  parents  of  Jesus  were  called 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  that  his  father  was  a  carpenter, 
were  determined  by  tradition."  And,  again,  he  writes 
(ibid. j  pp.  116  and  117):  "Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  was 
a  goddess.  Under  the  name  of  Maya  she  is  the  mother 
of  Agni.1  .  .  .     She  appears,  under  the  same  name,  as 

irrhe  Vedic  fire-god.    He  was  born,  according  to  the  Yajur-Veda,  from 
the  mouth  of  a  divine  being  (Prajapati),  Muir,  Sanscrit  Texts,  2d  ed.,  I,  p.  16. 


MARY  AND  JOSEPH  7 

the  mother  of  Buddha,  as  well  as  of  the  Greek  Hermes. 
She  is  identical  with  Maira  (Maera),  as,  according  to 
Pausanias  (VIII,  12,  48),  the  Pleiad  Maia,  the  wife  of 
Hephaistos,  was  called.1  She  appears  among  the  Per- 
sians as  the  '  virgin'  mother  of  Mithras.  As  Myrrha,  she 
is  the  mother  of  the  Syrian  Adonis;  as  Semiramis,  mother 
of  the  Babylonian  Ninus  (Marduk).  In  the  Arabic  leg- 
end she  appears  under  the  name  of  Mirzam,  as  mother 
of  the  mythical  saviour,  Joshua,  who  was  so  closely  re- 
lated to  Moses;  and,  according  to  Eusebius,  Merris  was 
the  name  of  the  Egyptian  princess  who  found  Moses  in  a 
basket  and  became  his  foster-mo ther." 

Finally,  in  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus 
(1912),  p.  164,  Doctor  Drews  complains  that  Weiss2  is 
unable  to  recognise  in  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
Marys  at  the  cross  and  the  grave  of  the  Saviour  the 
Indian,  Asiatic,  and  Egyptian  mother  of  the  gods — the 
Maia,  Mariamma,  or  Maritala,  as  the  mother  of  Krishna 
is  called,  the  Mariana  of  Mariandynium  (Bithynia), 
Mandane,  the  mother  of  the  Messiah,  Cyrus  (Isaiah 
45  :  1),  the  " great  mother"  of  Pessinunt,3  the  sorrowing 
Semiramis,  Miriam,  Merris,' Myrrha,  Maira  (Maera),  and 
Maia,  "  beloved  of  her  son,"  as  the  more  enlightened 
mythical  school  have  done. 

We  have  given  in  the  above  extracts,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, the  ipsissima  verba*  of  these  writers  in  order  to  pre- 
clude any  possibility  of  a  misstatement  of  their"  views  and 

1  Drews  points  out  {The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  169,  note  2) 
that  Augustus  was  called  the  "  World  Saviour,"  and  referred  to  by  Horace 
as  Maia's  winged  child.  But  the  former  title  is  used  only  in  a  secular  sense 
— saviour  of  the  world  from  anarchy  and  bloodshed;  and  the  latter  is 
merely  a  fulsome  compliment  paid  by  Horace.  This  really  shows  that  his- 
torical personages  were  thus  complimented.  His  actual  mother  was  Atia, 
niece  to  Julius  Caesar,  as  Horace  knew  very  well.  But  see  also  Suetonius, 
Div.  Aug.,  94;  Dio  Cassius,  XLV,  1,  2. 

2  In  his  Jesus  von  Nazareth:  My  thus  oder  Geschichte? 

3  See  The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  53  and  78. 

4  The  last  two  from  authorised  translations. 


8    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

meaning.  We  will  now  proceed  to  examine,  as  concisely 
as  may  be,  these  ''second-hand  statements,"  as  they  are 
truly  termed  by  Doctor  Cheyne,  who  adds:  "Even  if  they 
were  always  correct,  and  had  no  need  of  verification,  the 
inferences  are  impossible."1 

It  will  have  been  gathered  from  these  quotations  that 
both  Mr.  Robertson  and  Doctor  Drews,  admitting  the 
silence  of  history  upon  these  points,  very  largely  base 
their  hypothetical  identifications  of  all  the  Marys  with 
the  mother-goddesses  upon  analogy  and  the  etymologies 
of  their  numerous  local  appellations.  This  is — within 
limits — justifiable,  and  a  salutary  check  upon  wild  specu- 
lation; let  us,  therefore,  in  the  present  chapter  apply 
this  important  test,  so  far  as  it  is  applicable,  and  see  what 
results  we  get  from  it. 

The  Goddess-Mothers 

Speaking  broadly  and  generally,  it  may  be  affirmed  that 
in  the  various  localised  forms  of  the  goddess-mother  the 
root  ma  ("bring  forth")  forms  part  of  the  name.  This 
is  especially  evident  in  that  very  primitive  form,  Amma? 
(Ma),  the  Hittite  name  of  the  mother.  But  this  root 
certainly  cannot  be  found  in  all  the  names  enumerated 
by  Professor  Drews,  who,  along  with  Mr.  Robertson, 
appears  to  think  that  because  an  Oriental  female  name 
begins  with  M,  or  contains  a  syllable  in  which  that  con- 
sonant forms  the  initial  letter,  it  is  a  sure  indication  that 
we  are  dealing  with  some  form  of  the  universal  mother.3 

1  See  his  review  of  The  Christ  Myth  in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  April,  191 1, 
p.  60. 

2  Probably  akin  to  Assyr.,  alittu,  "  the  begetting  one,"  fern.  part,  of  aladu, 
"to  give  birth."  Thus  we  get  the  form  mulitta  (cf.  Herod.,  I,  199)  from 
valid-tu,  the  m  reproducing  the  semi-vowel  5  and  a  becoming  u  through  the 
influence  of  the  labial  m. 

3  It  will  be  impossible  here  to  take  all  these  names  in  detail.  Amongst 
the  striking  exceptions  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  Drews  we  may  mention 
Mandane.  According  to  Doctor  Mills,  professor  of  Zend  philology  at  Ox- 
ford, Mandane  may  be  derived  from  any  of  the  following:    (1)  mad  (cf. 


MARY,  OR  MARIAM  (MIRIAM)  9 

Mary,  or  Mariam  {Miriam) 

But  it  is  when  we  turn  to  the  alleged  connexion  of  the 
name  "Mary"  ("Mariam")  with  that  of  the  goddess- 
mothers  that  this  theory  is  seen  to  be  wholly  untrue  to 
fact. 

With  regard  to  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  name  "Mariam,"  Doctor  Schmiedel  says  (Enc. 
Bib.,  art.  "Mary,"  sec.  i):  "There  are  but  two  alterna- 
tive roots  that  can  be  seriously  considered,  ITlD,  Ho  be 
rebellious/  and  fcHD,  'to  be  fat/  The  K  of  the  fc-TlD  might 
before  the  a  of  -am  pass  into  "»,  which  in  the  case  of  mo 
is  already  the  third  consonant.  The  termination  -am 
indicates  substantives  as  well  as  adjectives,  and  is  espe- 
cially common  in  the  case  of  proper  names.  Mariam, 
then,  might  mean  either  'the  rebellious '  {cf.  Num.  12  : 
1-15),  or  'the  corpulent.' " 

Finally,  he  decides  in  favour  of  the  latter  meaning  as 
according  excellently  with  the  whole  analogy  of  Semitic 
names;  it  is  associated,  he  adds,  with  the  Semitic  idea 
of  beauty. 

Doctor  Boyd,  on  the  other  hand,  thinks  (Hastings' 
D.  B.,  vol.  I,  art.  "Miriam")  that  the  name  "is  probably 
of  Egyptian  derivation,"  and  explains  it  thus:  Miriam  = 
mer  Amon  {Amun),  "beloved  of  Amon"1 — an  explana- 
tion equally  remote  with  that  of  Doctor  Schmiedel  from 
the  one  sought  to  be  established  by  the  mythicists.  It 
is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  the  name  Mary  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  trace  of  a  meaning  "begetter,"  or  "nursing 
mother,"  which  is  often  found  in  the  names  of  the  mother- 
goddess. 

Sansc,  mad  and  mand),  "  to  delight,"  "  the  winsome  one."  (2)  man  -f-  dha, 
"the  prudent  (i.  e.}  "exercising")  mind."  (3)  A  form  from  mana,  "house," 
*.  e.,  manadha,  "house-mistress."  There  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  she 
is  an  historical  character. 

1  Similarly,  Moses  has  been  connected  with  mes,  mesu,  "  son."    Cf.  Ra- 
mesu  (Rameses),  "son  of  Ra,"  etc.  (so  Sayce). 


10    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Mr.  Robertson,  however,  at  this  point  attempts  to 
affiliate  directly  the  Mariam  (Mary)  of  the  Gospel  story 
with  the  Miriam  of  Exodus,  who  is,  he  adds  with  dog- 
matic self-confidence,  "no  more  historical  than  Moses." 
This  latter  theory  has,  it  is  true,  been  somewhat  fash- 
ionable of  late,  and  it  is  zealously  advocated  by  Doctor 
Hugo  Winckler  in  his  Geschichte  Israels  in  Einzendarstel- 
lungen  (1900).  But,  after  all,  it  is  still  a  mere  hypothe- 
sis, and  very  far  from  being  an  established  fact  upon 
which  an  argument  may  be  based.  In  short,  the  entire 
non-historicity  of  both  Miriam  and  Moses  has  yet  to  be 
proved.  Yet,  he  insists:  "She  is  to  be  reckoned  an  an- 
cient deity  evemerised."  Men,  not  deities — we  may  re- 
mark here — are  evemerised  by  being  raised  to  the  rank 
of  gods.  Very  probably  there  has  been  some  evemerism 
at  work  here,  and  Moses  and  Miriam  were  subsequently 
deified  by  the  polytheistic  Arabians  and  other  neigh- 
bouring races.  This,  however,  would  be  a  more  con- 
clusive argument  for  their  historicity,  though  of  course 
it  would  not  prove  that  various  mythic  stories  had  not 
gathered  round  them  and  their  exploits.  In  any  case, 
Mr.  Robertson's  "irremovable  surmise"  that  Mary  the 
mother  of  Jesus  "may  [he  is  less  dogmatic  here!]  have 
been  worshipped  in  Syria  as  a  form  of  the  goddess-mother, 
long  before  our  era,"  is  nothing  but  a  pure  guess  unsub- 
stantiated by  any  admitted  facts. 

We  may  at  this  point  deal  with  Mr.  Robertson's  ref- 
erence to  the  Talmud  in  connexion  with  this  question. 
There  is  an  evident  confusion  in  this  work  between  Mary 
the  mother  of  Jesus  and  Mary  Magdalene,  and  the  im- 
putation implied  in  the  term  "hair-dresser"  was  no  doubt 
connected  with  the  birth-slanders  of  which  Origen  (Cont. 
Cels.,  I,  25,  32)  speaks. 

Now  Mary  Magdalene  is  said  (Luke  8  :  2)  to  have  been 
formerly  possessed  of  "seven  demons."  But  the  demoni- 
acal possession  of  a  woman  would  not  of  necessity  imply 


MARY,  OR  MARIAM  (MIRIAM)  11 

harlotry  as  one  of  its  effects.  " Possession"  frequently 
resulted  in  nothing  worse  than  a  morose  disposition  and 
violent  and  mischievous  acts  (cf.  Matt.  8  :  28). 

Again,  Miriam  (Mariam)  is  stated  (Num.  12  :  10;  cf. 
Deut.  24  :  9)  to  have  been  smitten  with  leprosy  for  con- 
tempt of  Moses.  But  this  "contempt"  in  no  way  indi- 
cates "  moral  possession  by  devils."  It  is  true  that  in 
those  times,  and  long  previously,  disease  of  all  kinds  was 
commonly  attributed  to  malicious  demons,  and  in  Baby- 
lonian and  other  literature  many  formula  exist  for  the 
expulsion  of  these  intruders.  But  the  act  is  referred  by 
the  writers  of  both  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy  to  Jah- 
veh,  and  the  treatment  of  that  disease  was  not  exorcistic 
(see  Lev.  13  and  14).  Moreover,  Miriam's  leprosy  (F\ JTtit) 
seems  to  have  been  only  some  transient  skin  affection, 
simulating  perhaps  the  graver  disease,  and  not  the  true 
leprosy  (elephantiasis  Grcecorum).  Neither  is  there  any 
evident  connexion  between  the  story  of  Miriam  and  the 
story  of  the  Magdalene;  still  less  is  there  any  with  that 
of  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus.  The  " myths" — if  myths 
they  be — are  apparently  quite  unconnected. 

Again,  Mr.  Robertson's  contention  that  the  root  of 
the  Hebrew  word  7^30  (Migdal,  " tower"),  from  which 
Magdala  is  commonly  derived,  and  which  yields  also  the 
various  senses  of  "nursing"  ("rearing"),  and  especially 
"hair-dressing,"  connects  Mary  Magdalene  (who  thus 
becomes  a  reduplication  of  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus) 
with  the  pagan  goddess-mother,  is  founded  upon  the 
slenderest  possible  grounds,  and  really  proves  nothing. 
It  is  true  that  Migdal  has  been — more  or  less  plausibly 
— derived  from  a  root  Ttt,  which  has  various  meanings. 
Amongst  these,  in  the  Piel  voice,  it  signifies  intensively 
"to  cause  or  take  care  that  anything  shall  grow,"  etc.; 
hence  "to  nourish,"  "to  cultivate,"  "to  bring  up  chil- 
dren" (II  Kings  10  :  6;  Isaiah  1  :  2;  23  14);  "to  train  the 
hair"  (Num.  6  :  5),  i.  e.,  not  to  cut  it.    But  there  is  great 


12    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

uncertainty  here.  Apart  from  doubt  as  to  the  real  der- 
ivation, Magadan  is  a  better  reading.  This,  however,  has 
been  conjectured  to  be  a  "possible  corruption  of  an  orig- 
inal Magdala."  It  is  really  impossible  to  frame  any  trust- 
worthy hypothesis  upon  such  meagre  data.  And  in  any 
case  the  existence  of  a  town — whatever  the  derivation 
and  meaning  of  its  name  may  be — called  Magdala  is 
amply  proved  by  its  mention  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
fErubln,  5,  1)  which  places  it  within  a  Sabbath  day's 
journey  of  Tiberias.  The  same  authority  (Ta'anith,  4,  8) 
states  that  it  was  a  place  of  some  wealth,  and  in  the 
Midrash  'Ekkah,  2,  2,  it  is  said  to  have  been  destroyed 
"because  of  licentiousness,"  which  statement  may  have 
some  connexion  with  the  sinister  post-evangelical  repu- 
tation of  Mary  Magdalene. 

It  is  much  more  probable,  therefore,  that  this  Mary 
derived  her  designation  from  the  town  of  her  origin  than 
from  any  practise  of  hair-dressing,  of  which  there  is  no 
trace  in  Christian  tradition. 

Neither  is  there  any  evidence  for  the  theory  of  her  iden- 
tity with  Mary  the  mother  of  the  Lord  further  than  the 
confusion  between  them  which  is  shown  in  the  Talmud; 
nor  for  the  concomitant  idea  of  her  name  indicating 
"begetting"  or  "nursing,"  for,  as  we  have  already  shown, 
of  this  the  name  Mary  (Mariam)  contains  no  trace 
whatever.  In  short,  Mr.  Robertson's  excursion  into 
philology  is  a  very  precarious  one,  and  proves  nothing. 
Probability  points  to  the  reputation  of  the  town  in  Jew- 
ish tradition  as  having  later  adversely  affected  that  of 
its  townswoman,1  and  to  a  Talmudic  misstatement — in- 
advertent or  deliberate — as  having  helped  to  formulate 
the  confused  and  scurrilous  birth-stories  so  common  in 
the  Jewish  synagogues  of  the  second  century. 

1 1,  c,  the  "seven  demons"  were  supposed  to  cause  licentiousness  of  life. 
But  she  is  an  afxaprwXSs,  not  a  Trdpvr)  (Luke  7  :  37). 


THE  "VIRGINITY"  OF  THE  GODDESS-MOTHERS    13 

The  "Virginity"  of  the  Goddess-Mothers 

In  order  to  understand  rightly  the  term  " virgin"  as 
used  in  mythical  literature,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
it  means  no  more  than  that  the  goddess  in  question  had 
no  recognised  male  partner,  or,  as  Doctor  Cheyne  euphe- 
mistically states  it  {Bib.  Probs.,  p.  75),  that  she  was  not 
"bound  by  the  marriage- tie."  l  The  mythical  idea  was 
wholly  sexual  and  " unmoral."  In  the  Gospels,  on  the 
contrary,  the  idea  is  purely  parthenogenetic  and  has  no 
implications  of  license. 

In  addition,  however,  to  overlooking  this  important 
and  fundamental  distinction,  Professor  Drews  makes  vari- 
ous assumptions  and  falls  into  divers  errors  in  connex- 
ion with  several  of  his  " mythic  mothers."  Thus,  he 
refers  to  Maera  as  "the  virgin  mother  of  Mithra."  Now 
the  actual  Mithra-myth  is  lost;  we  gather,  however, 
from  other  sources  that  Mithra  was  variously  described 
as  having  sprung  from  the  incestuous  intercourse  of 
Ahura-Mazda  with  his  own  mother,  and  as  being  the 
ordinary  offspring  of  a  common  mortal. 

Moreover,  the  extant  Mithraic  sculptures  depict  the 
god  as  originating  from  a  rock  (Petra  genetrix)  at  birth 
(Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Try.,  70).  Furthermore,  Mr. 
Robertson's  assertion  {Pagan  Christs,  p.  339)  that  "the 
virginity"  of  the  mother  of  Mithra  was  admitted  by  cer- 

1  Franckh  says  emphatically  ("Geburtsgesch.  Jes.  Chr.  im  Lichte  der  altori- 
entalisch.  Weltansch,"  Philostia,  1907,  pp.  213  /.):  "None  of  these  person- 
ages that  play  the  part  of  a  mother-goddess  is  thought  of  as  a  virgin.  .  .  . 
As  mother-goddess  Ishtar  has  no  male  god  who  permanently  corresponds  to 
her.  This  is  the  reason  why  she  is  vaguely  spoken  of  as  virgin  Ishtar."  In 
the  Babylonian  liturgies,  as  well  as  in  the  incantations,  the  "divine  harlot" 
Lilitu  (Heb.,  vrh'h)  is  especially  described  as  a  virgin  (Babyloniaca,  IV,  188, 
4/.,  translated  by  S.  Langdon).  We  also  meet  with  the  term  "virgin-har- 
lot" {is-ta-ri-tum) .  See  Haupt,  Akkadische  und  Sumerische  Keilschrifttexte, 
126.  18.  According  to  Epiphanius  (Hcer.,  LI)  the  mother  of  Dusares  (the 
N.  Arab,  equivalent  for  Tammuz,  etc.)  was  adored  as  "  the  Virgin  "  (7rap- 
9£vos}  K6prj),  while  her  son  was  worshipped  as  fiovoyevijs  rod  Aecnr&rov. 


14    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

tain  Christian  bishops  of  Armenia  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries  A.  D.  is  wholly  incorrect.  The  Armenian  his- 
torian Elisaeus  says  {Concerning  the  Vardans  and  the  Ar- 
menian War,  II,  53,  57)  the  bishops  stated  that  "The 
god  Mithra  was  born  of  a  woman";  and  again:  "The 
god  Mithra  was  incestuously  born  of  a  mortal  mother." 
A  similar  error  is  perpetuated  by  Doctor  Drews  when 
he  represents  {The  Christ  Myth,  p.  39)  Saoshyant  as  the 
"virgin's  son."  According  to  the  mythic  story  the  "seed" 
of  Zarathustra  was  miraculously  preserved  in  water  in 
which  three  maidens  bathed  at  different  times.  Each 
of  them  in  succession  became  pregnant  in  consequence, 
and  they  severally  afterwards  gave  birth  to  Saoshyant 
and  his  two  precursors.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  absurd 
to  classify  stories  of  this  type  as  "virgin  births"  in  the 
Biblical  sense  of  the  term.  But  the  most  glaring  error 
committed  by  him  is  one  into  which  he  falls  in  common 
with  many  other  modern  writers.  It  is  a  defiance  of  all 
ancient  authority  to  term  the  mother  of  the  Buddha 
"the  virgin  Maya."  Not  only  the  older  Pali  texts,  but 
the  Chinese  version  of  the  Abhinishkramana  Sutra,  and 
even  the  later  Lalita  vistara,1  of  the  Northern  or  Tibetan 
canon,  plainly  state  that  Maya  was  a  married  woman 
and  lived  with  her  husband  after  the  usual  manner.  A 
similar  remark  applies  to  the  statement  that  "the  virgin 
mother  of  Krishna"  was  named  "Mariamma  "  or  "Mari- 
tala."  The  Pur  anas  (circ.  1000  A.  D.),  from  which  we 
derive  our  principal  knowledge  of  the  family  affairs  of 
Krishna,  affirm  that  the  name  of  his  mother  was  Devaki, 
and  that  so  far  from  being  a  "virgin"  she  had  had,  be- 
fore the  birth  of  Krishna,  seven  children  by  her  husband 
Vasudeva. 

1 A  life  of  the  Buddha. 


THE  VIRGIN  OF  THE  ZODIAC  15 

The  Virgin  of  the  Zodiac 

Finally,  the  attempt  made  by  several  German  scholars 
to  identify  or  connect  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  with 
the  " Virgin"  of  the  zodiac  is  equally  futile.  This  astral 
concept,  if  it  be  a  reflection  of  the  great  mother-goddess 
idea,  has  a  very  different  connotation  from  the  Christian 
use  of  the  word  "virgin"  (wapdevos) ,  as  we  have  already 
shown. 

Again,  when  Jeremias  (Babylonisches,  p.  48)  and  Cheyne 
(Bib.  Probs.,  pp.  242  /.)  point  out  that  Mary,  accord- 
ing to  Epiphanius  (fourth  century  A.  D.),  was  at  a 
later  period  identified  with  the  mother-goddess,  Pro- 
fessor Carl  Clemen  very  properly  replies  that  this  fact 
proves  nothing  for  earlier  times.  "  Still  less,"  he  adds, 
"does  the  fact  which  the  former  scholar  adduces  (follow- 
ing Dupuis),  viz.,  that  on  a  side  door  of  Notre  Dame, 
in  Paris,  Mary  is  associated  with  the  signs  of  the  zo- 
diac" (Prim.  Christ,  and  Its  Non- Jewish  Sources,  p.  292, 
note  9).1  r   - 

A  consideration  of  the  various  facts  set  forth  in  the 
above  analysis  of  this  question  point,  we  think,  very 
strongly  to  the  following  conclusions  upon  the  matter: 
(1)  That  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  has  no  connexion 
whatever,  linguistically  or  analogically,  with  the  great 
mother-goddess  of  the  ancient  world.  (2)  That  the  term 
"virgin"  is  applied  to  her  in  quite  a  different  sense  to  that 
which  it  bore  in  relation  to  the  various  local  representa- 
tives of  the  mother-goddess.  Further,  this  last-named 
conclusion  is  supported  by  the  additional  fact  that  no- 
where in  the  New  Testament  is  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus 
regarded  as  in  any  sense  divine  (cf.  Mark  3  :  33  and  34). 
This  fact  alone,  indeed,  would  form  the  greatest  possible 

1  According  to  Jensen  (Die  Kosmol.  der  Babylonier,  p.  67)  the  earlier 
Babylonians,  and  the  Eastern  nations  generally,  had  no  such  name  as  "  Vir- 
gin" for  the  sign  which  was  later  known  as  Virgo. 


16    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

bar  to  any  identification  of  her  with  the  pagan  goddess- 
mothers,  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  mythical  theory. 

Joseph 

"The  myth  of  Joseph,"  writes  Mr.  Robertson  {Chris- 
tianity and  Mythology,  pp.  236  /.),  "arose  as  a  real  acces- 
sory to  the  cult  [of  the  mother].  Once  introduced,  he 
would  naturally  figure  as  an  elderly  man,  not  only  in  the 
interests  of  the  virgin  birth,  but  in  terms  of  the  Hebrew 
precedent  adopted  in  the  myth  of  the  parentage  of  John 
the  Baptist."  l  And  then  he  proceeds  to  state  that  this, 
together  with  the  story  of  "the  leading  of  the  laden  ass  by 
Joseph  in  the  journey  of  the  'holy  family/  was  suggested 
by  old  religious  ceremonial."  This  ceremonial  turns  out 
to  be  a  sacred  procession  in  the  cult  of  Isis,  as  described 
by  Apuleius  (Metamorphoses,  book  XI),  wherein  there 
figures  "a  feeble  old  man  leading  an  ass."2  The  great 
Isiac  cult,  he  argues,  would  be  unlikely  to  adopt  such  an 
episode  from  a  new  system  like  Christianity.  The  an- 
tiquity of  this  symbolism  may  next  be  traced  to  Plu- 
tarch's statement  (Be  Is.  et  Osir.,  32)  that  "in  the  fore- 
court of  the  temple  of  the  goddess  at  Sais  there  were 
sculptured  a  child,  an  old  man,  and  some  animal  figures." 
Lastly:  "The  Egyptians  held  that  all  things  came  from 
Saturn  (ibid.,  59),  or  a  similar  Egyptian  god,  who  signi- 
fied at  once  time  and  the  Nile  (ibid.,  32),  and  was  al- 
ways figured  as  aged."  In  short,  "the  Christian  system 
is  a  patchwork  of  a  hundred  suggestions  drawn  from 
pagan  art  and  ritual  usage." 

But  Mr.  Robertson  has  a  further  and  more  important 
source.    Let  us  hear  him  patiently  a  little  further  (Chris- 

1  Referring  here  to  the  Hist,  of  Joseph  the  Carpenter,  IV  and  VII,  and  the 
Gospel  of  the  Birth  of  Mary,  VIII.  "This  is  the  view,"  he  adds,  "of  Chris- 
tian tradition." 

2  Apuleius  says:  "An  ass,  on  which  wings  were  glued,  and  which  walked 
near  a  feeble  old  man."  "These  were  supposed  to  represent  Pegasus  and 
Bellerophon"  (Budge,  Osiris,  etc.,  vol.  II,  p.  297). 


JOSEPH  17 

tianity  and  Mythology,  pp.  326  jf.):  "The  first  presump- 
tion of  the  early  Judaic  myth-makers  evidently  was  to 
present  the  Messiah  as  Ben  David,  son  of  the  hero-king, 
himself  clothed  about  with  myth,  like  Cyrus.  For  this 
purpose  were  framed  the  two  mythic  genealogies.  But 
it  so  happened,"  he  proceeds,  "that  the  Palestinian 
tradition  demanded  a  Messias  Ben  Joseph — a  descend- 
ant of  the  mythic  patriarch — as  well  as  the  Messias  Ben 
David."  He  declines  to  enter  into  the  origin  of  the  for- 
mer doctrine,  which,  he  says,  "suggests  a  partial  revival 
of  the  ancient  adoration  of  the  god  Joseph,  as  well  as 
that  of  the  god  Daoud  [sic],  though  it  may  have  been," 
he  concludes,  "a  tribal  matter." 

We  have  not  space  to  follow  out  in  further  and  mi- 
nute detail  this  argument,  which  the  reader  will  find  in 
Mr.  Robertson's  work,  but  we-  will  here  merely  add  his 
summary  taken  from  Fragments  of  a  Samaritan  Targum 
(Nutt,  1874),  p.  70,  where  the  author  writes:  "Messiah 
the  son  of  Joseph  will  come  before  Messiah  the  son  of 
David,  will  assemble  the  ten  tribes  in  Galilee  and  lead 
them  to  Jerusalem;  but  will  at  last  perish  in  battle 
against  Gog  and  Magog  for  the  sins  of  Jeroboam."  This 
passage,  however,  he  adds,  "overlooks  the  circumstance 
that  in  two  Talmudic  passages  the  Messiah  Ben  David 
is  identified  with  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph,  or,  as  he  is 
styled  in  one  case,  Ben  Ephraim."1 

Professor  Drews,  to  whom  we  will  now  turn,  in  gen- 
eral accepts  the  above  presentation  of  the  case  and  adds 
various  details  of  his  own.  Thus,  he  says  {The  Christ 
Myth,  pp.  115-117):  "As  is  well  known,  Jesus,  too  [like 
Agni],  had  three  fathers  [sic],  viz.,  his  heavenly  Father 
Jahwe,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  also  his  earthly  father 
Joseph.  The  latter  is  also  a  workmaster,  artisan,  or  car- 
references  to  Tract.  Succa,  folio  52,  1;  Zohar  Chadash,  folio  45,  1;  and 
Pesikta,  folio  62,  quoted  by  F.  H.  Reichardt,  Relation  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians to  the  Jews  (1884),  pp.  37  and  38. 


18    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

penter,  as  the  word  tekton  indicates.1  Similarly,  Kiny- 
ras,  the  father  of  Adonis,  is  said  to  have  been  some 
kind  of  artisan,  a  smith  or  carpenter.  That  is  to  say, 
he  is  supposed  to  have  invented  the  hammer  and  the 
lever,  and  roofing  as  well  as  mining.  In  Homer  he  ap- 
pears as  the  maker  of  the  ingenious  coat  of  mail  which 
Agamemnon  received  from  him  as  a  guest-friend  (77., 
XI,  20;  cf.  Movers,  Die  Phon.,  242,  s.).  The  father  of 
Hermes  is  also  an  artisan."  And  in  a  foot-note  he  adds 
(p.  116):  "  According  to  the  Arabian  legend,  Father 
Abraham,  also,  who  plays  the  part  of  a  saviour  [ !  ], 
was,  under  the  name  of  Thare2  [?  Terah],  a  skilful  mas- 
ter-workman, understanding  how  to  cut  arrows  from 
any  wood,  and  being  especially  occupied  with  the  prep- 
aration of  idols  (Sepp,  Das  Held,  u,  dess.  Bedeut.  fiir  das 
Christent.,  1853,  HI,  82)." 

Finally,  he  asserts  that  "Joseph,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  was  originally  a  god  .  .  .";  and  "In  reality,  the 
whole  of  the  family  and  home  life  of  the  Messiah,  Jesus, 
took  place  among  the  gods.  It  was  only  reduced  to 
that  of  a  human  being  in  lowly  circumstances  by  the 
fact  that  Paul  described  the  descent  of  the  Messiah  upon 
the  earth  as  an  assumption  of  poverty  and  a  relinquish- 
ment of  his  heavenly  splendour  (II  Cor.  8:9).  Hence " 
— and  this  is  the  crucial  point  in  the  whole  of  Drews's 
hypothesis — "when  the  myth  was  transformed  into  his- 
tory,3  Christ  was  turned  into  a  poor  man  in  the  economic 
sense  of  the  word,  while  Joseph,  the  divine  artificer,  and 
father  of  the  sun  [ !  ],  became  an  ordinary  carpenter." 

We  will  now  subject  this  complex  mass  of  confident 

1  All  clean  handicrafts  were  looked  upon  by  the  Jews  as  honourable  occu- 
pations. Even  the  high  priest  might  be  a  carpenter.  This  is  quite  a  Sem-- 
itic  view. 

2  See  Koran  (Sale's  translation),  pp.  95, 96,  and  notes.  In  Jewish  records 
Terah  is  the  father  of  Abraham.  Arab  traditions  are  very  inaccurate  and 
untrustworthy. 

3  Italics  ours. 


JOSEPH  19 

assertions,  unproved  theories,  and  plausible  identifica- 
tions to  as  detailed  an  analysis  as  is  here  possible. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  learn,  in  the  first  place,  why 
the  myth  of  Joseph  arose  as  a  real  accessory  to  the  cult 
[of  a  divine  and  virgin  mother].  At  the  outset  it  is  for- 
eign to  the  pagan  myths,  and  his  presence  in  a  story  of 
that  type  would  rather  tend  to  discount  it.  But  that 
is  the  reason,  Mr.  Robertson  thinks,  why  he  must  be 
"elderly."  The  canonical  Gospels,  however,  which  con- 
tain by  far  the  oldest  version  of  the  story,  nowhere  de- 
scribe, or  appear  to  regard,  him  as  being  elderly.  Mat- 
thew, indeed  (i  :  18,  25 — in  the  latter  verse  especially), 
indirectly  negatives  that  view.  It  is  only  in  the  very  late 
Apocryphs  (and  in  popular  Christian  art,  derived  from 
them)  that  Joseph  is  so  depicted.  And  the  motive  for 
this  newer  view  is  plain.  The  church  had  then  become 
less  Jewish,  and  the  normal  Hebrew  ideal  of  faithful 
wedlock  had  largely  given  place  to  an  alien  and  ultra- 
ascetic  Gentilism  in  which  perpetual  virginity  was  held 
up  as  the  model  virtue  for  both  men  and  women.  This, 
however,  was  really  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  teaching 
of  the  earliest  church,  as  well  as  that  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels,  which  were  the  expression  and  the  outcome  of  it. 

But  having  got  the  elderly  man  (from  the  late  and  un- 
canonical  gospels),  Mr.  Robertson  proceeds  to  make  the 
most  of  him.  He  is  (apparently)  identified  with  the 
feeble  old  man  " leading  an  ass"1  in  the  sacred  proces- 
sion of  Isis,  described  by  Apuleius  in  his  Metamorphoses. 
How,  may  we  ask,  does  Mr.  Robertson  know  this? 
Apuleius  does  not  explain  the  symbolism  of  this  proces- 
sion, and  Plutarch,  to  whom  Mr.  Robertson  would  seem 
to  appeal,  merely  says  that  in  the  court  of  the  temple 
at  Sais  there  were  graven  figures  of  "a  child  and  an  old 
man,"  together  with  those  of  a  hawk,  a  fish,  and  a  hip- 

1  For  the  symbolism  of  the  ass,  see  Budge,  The  Gods  of  the  Egyptians, 
vol  II,  pp.  246  and  367. 


20    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

popotamus,  and  adds  that  the  two  first-named  stood  for 
"the  beginning  and  end  of  life."  Here  we  certainly  get 
the  elderly  man  (together  with  what  Plutarch  thought 
he  symbolised) ;  but  what  both  of  these  examples  have  to 
do  with  the  story  of  Joseph  it  is  impossible  to  see.  Ap- 
parently Mr.  Robertson  thinks  that  because  an  old  man 
and  a  donkey  figure,  in  some  connexion  or  other,  in  a 
pagan  cult,  this  fact  constitutes  an  origin  or  source  for 
either  the  story  of  the  journey  of  Joseph  to  Bethlehem, 
or  perhaps  that  of  his  subsequent  flight  with  Mary  and 
the  Child  upon  an  ass  to  Egypt.  This  connexion  here,  as 
the  reader  will  see,  is  both  highly  obscure  and  extremely 
precarious. 

The  parallel  suggested  by  the  aged  Zacharias  is  more 
plausible.  But  even  here  the  circumstances  and  details 
are  very  different.  Both  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth  are 
aged  married  people,  who,  it  would  seem,  greatly  desired 
a  son,  because  barrenness  was  a  subject  of  reproach 
amongst  the  Jews  as  a  mark  of  God's  displeasure.  More- 
over, the  Matthaean  and  Lucan  stories  came  from  differ- 
ent sources,1  and  the  Lucan  is  later.  In  any  case,  it  is 
most  unlikely  that  it  has  influenced  the  story  of  Mat- 
thew or  in  any  way  suggested  an  elderly  Joseph  as  an 
accessory  to  the  virginal  (parthenogenetic)  conception  of 
Mary.  The  whole  of  Mr.  Robertson's  argument  here,  in 
short,  is  nil  ad  rem — it  is  beside  the  mark  whether  these 
stories  are  in  any  way  historical  or  not. 

As  regards  the  genealogies,  it  will  be  impossible  here 
to  deal  with  them  in  any  detail.  But  we  may  advert  to 
two  important  points  which  tend  to  throw  some  light 
upon  them.  Mr.  Robertson  has  pronounced  them  both 
to  be,  like  the  birth-stories,  mythic,  late,  and  artificially 
concocted  in  support  of  the  tradition  of  a  future  Messias 
Ben  David. 

It  so  happens,  however,  that  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 

1  This  is  shown,  inter  alia,  by  its  difference  of  treatment  and  standpoint. 


JOSEPH  21 

(Mishna,  Jabamoth,  49a)  there  is  a  mention  of  an  official 
record  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  with  apparently  a  reference 
to  some  genealogy.  It  runs  thus:  " Simeon  ben-Azzai1 
has  said:  I  found  in  Jerusalem  a  book  of  genealogies; 
therein  was  written  that  'So  and  So'2  is  an  illegitimate 
son  of  a  married  woman  (rnamser)." 

Now,  it  is  well  known  that  very  soon  after  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  (A.  D.  70)  and  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish 
state  the  interest  in  the  Davidic  descent  of  the  Messiah 
rapidly  declined;  to  invent  such  documents,  therefore, 
after  that  date,  would  have  been  ill-timed  and  practically 
useless.  It  may  also  be  suggested  that  our  present  gen- 
ealogies seem  to  be  designed  rather  with  a  view  to  trac- 
ing the  descent  of  Jesus  respectively  from  Abraham, 
"the  Father  of  the  Jewish  race,"  and  from  Adam,  "the 
father  of  all  men."  But  the  genealogy  of  the  Messiah 
was,  in  any  case,  more  a  matter  of  interest  to  the  Jew 
than  to  the  Gentile.  Our  present  lists,  too,  are  very 
artificial  documents,  and  show  signs  of  redaction  and 
adaptation. 

Finally,  as  to  Mr.  Robertson's  theory  of  a  rival,  and 
perhaps  contemporary,  Messias  Ben  Joseph,  it  must  suf- 
fice here  to  reply  in  the  words  of  Doctor  Cheyne  (Enc. 
Bib.,  art.  "Messiah,"  sec.  9):  "The  developed  form  of 
this  idea  is  almost  certainly  a  product  of  the  polemic 
with  Christianity  in  which  the  rabbins  were  hard  pressed 
by  arguments  from  passages,  which  their  own  exegesis 
admitted  to  be  Messianic." 

There  is  certainly,  we  may  add,  no  evidence  of  its  ex- 
istence until  after  the  time  of  Christ.  That  the  Samar- 
itans, after  their  rejection  by  the  Jews  (Ezra  4:3),  may 
have  hoped  for  a  non- Jewish  Messiah  is  another  matter, 

1  Flourished  end  of  first  century  A.  D. 

2  Or  "  that  man,"  a  common  Talmudic  and  cryptic  reference  to  Jesus,  used 
to  avoid  suppression  by  the  Christian  censor.  Herod  I  is  said  (Eusebius, 
H.  E.,  I,  7;  cf.  Talmud,  Pesachim,  62b),  to  have  burnt  all  genealogical  reg- 
isters in  order  to  conceal  traces  of  his  humble  birth. 


22    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

and  not  improbable.  At  the  same  time,  the  Samaritan 
doctrine  of  the  Tdheb  ("he  who  returns,"  or  "he  who  re- 
stores") is  founded  entirely  upon  Deut.  18  :  15,  where  it 
has  no  Messianic  application  whatever.  Moreover,  in  the 
Gospels,  Joseph  is  not  a  rival  Messiah  but  the  foster-father 
of  the  Messias  Ben  David  (Jesus). 

The  additional  and  special  points  added  to  this  argu- 
ment by  Professor  Drews  must  be  briefly  noticed.  The 
comparison  which  he  draws  with  Agni  and  his  "three 
fathers"1  is  almost  too  absurd  to  be  taken  seriously. 
The  reference,  in  the  case  of  Agni,  is  to  his  three  succes- 
sive births — a  concept  wholly  different  from  the  one  with 
which  we  are  dealing  here.  Jahveh,  too,  in  the  Gospels, 
is  called  the  Father  of  Jesus,  especially  in  the  sense  of 
source  or  origin  of  his  divine  nature  (ttyyv  Seorr/ro^). 
Joseph  is  placed  in  the  capacity  of  foster-father  and 
guardian  of  the  young  Child  and  his  mother.  The  Holy 
Spirit  alone  is  regarded  by  "Matthew"  as  bringing  about 
the  conception  of  Jesus  Christ. 

As  to  Kinyras,  he  is  stated  to  have  been  a  son  of 
Apollo,  and  a  king  of  Cyprus,  as  well  as  priest  of  the 
Paphian  Aphrodite.  But  Homer  says  distinctly  that 
Kinyras,  "the  man  (or  'god')  of  the  harp,"  gave  the  breast- 
plate to  (not  made  it  for)  Agamemnon.2  This  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  he  was  not  considered  by  Homer 
to  be  an  artisan  of  any  kind,  and  therefore  not  at  all 
comparable  with  Joseph,  the  carpenter.3  The  real  dif- 
ficulty, in  regard  to  Joseph,  lies  in  none  of  the  points 
noticed  above.    It  arises  rather  out  of  the  meagre  refer- 

1Savitar  (sky),  Tvashtar  (smith),  and  Matarishvan  (wind-god). 

2  dibprjKa  rrepi  <rrijdea<TLv  eSvvev 
rbv  trori  ol  Kivijprjs  5c6/ce  j-etvrj'Cov  elpcu- 

—II,  XI,  20. 
3  The  concepts  underlying  the  Greek  god  Hermes,  next  referred  to  by 
Drews,  are  too  complex  and  difficult  for  treatment  here.  If,  however,  his 
nature  and  character  are  carefully  studied  in  the  light  of  comparative  myth- 
ology, it  will  be  seen  that  he  represents  no  real  parallel  whatever  with  Jesus, 
as  the  son  of  an  "artisan." 


JOSEPH  23 

ence  that  is  made  to  him  in  the  New  Testament  gener- 
ally, and,  above  all,  from  the  fact  that  he  is  not  even 
named  in  the  earliest  Gospel  (Mark).  He  is  mentioned 
just  fourteen  times  in  all,  and  only  by  Matthew  and 
Luke.1  Mark,  having  no  birth-story,  does  not  allude  to 
him,  though  this  does  not  necessarily  imply,  as  some 
critics  would  have  it,  that  he  knew  nothing  of  Joseph. 
Certainly,  had  Mark  been  historicising  a  myth,  he  must 
have  heard  of  a  birth-story  of  some  kind,  and,  in  that 
case,  he  would  probably  have  tried  his  hand  at  a  trans- 
position of  it  into  history. 

Whatever  conclusion,  therefore,  we  may  reach  with 
regard  to  the  nature  of  these  narratives,  which  are  not 
so  late  in  their  origin  as  Mr.  Robertson  confidently  as- 
sumes, it  will  be  well  to  remember  the  caution  of  Doctor 
Cheyne  (a  critic  who,  as  it  is  well  known,  is  strongly  dis- 
posed to  discount  a  great  deal  for  myth)  when  he  says 
{Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "  Joseph") :  "It  would,  however,  be  hasty 
to  assert  that  there  is  no  element  of  truth  in  the  expres- 
sion, '  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born 
Jesus,  who  is  called  the  Christ  (Matt,  i  :  16).'"2 

1 1.  e.,  in  Matt,  i  and  2  seven  times,  in  Luke  1-4  also  seven  times,  the  ref- 
erences in  both  cases  being  in  the  introductory  sections  of  the  two  Gospels. 
The  Sin.  Palimp.  has  "  son  of  Joseph"  (for  "  carpenter's  son")  in  Matt.  13  : 
55.  The  phrase  -uj  1|  (Baba  Bathra,  73b),  however,  simply  means  "a  car- 
penter," p*wa  "fij  and  it  has  been  suggested  that,  as  used  in  the  tradition,  it 
may  mean  no  more  than  this  (see  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Joseph,"  9). 

2Doctor  Cheyne  suggests,  in  the  above  article,  that  "Jesus,  son  of  Joseph," 
may  mean  Jesus  a  member  of  the  house  [clan]  of  Joseph  (Zech.  10  :  6). 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ANNUNCIATION,   CONCEPTION,   AND  BIRTH 

The  Annunciation  and  Conception 

The  narratives  describing  the  annunciations  to  Mary 
and  Elisabeth,  the  nature  of  the  conception  of  Jesus  and 
his  birth  at  Bethlehem  have  commonly  been  wholly 
ruled  out  of  history  not  merely  by  the  mythicists  but 
also  by  many  scholars  who  frankly  accept  an  historical 
Jesus.  The  latter,  while  holding  the  undoubted  histo- 
ricity of  Jesus,  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  Matt, 
i  :  16-2  and  Luke  1  and  2  as  popular  stories  relating  to 
an  actual  man  which  have  undergone  in  places  a  super- 
naturalising  modification  at  the  hands  of  pious  and  well- 
meaning,  but  ill-informed,  copyists;1  whereas  the  for- 
mer, who  regard  the  person  of  the  Jesus  set  forth  in  the 
Gospels  as  purely  mythical,  have  looked  upon  these  rec- 
ords as  substantially  variants  of  well-known  myths  con- 
taining no  substratum  whatever  of  historical  fact.  The 
birth-stories,  they  assert,  are  -nothing  but  old  myths, 
and  as  such  have  a  meaning,  though  this  meaning  is  not 
historical;  it  is  connected  with  an  explanation  of  the 
universe,  and  the  gods  and  mankind.2 

1 E.  g.,  Matt.  1  :  16  is  said  to  have  had  an  original  reading:  "  And  Joseph 
begat  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ"  ('Ia><r7?0  5£  iyivvycre  'I-qcrovv  rbv  \ey6fxe- 
vov  Xpurrdv),  which  was  altered  to  the  various  readings  now  found  in  the 
MSS.;  Luke  1  :  34  and  35,  and  also  the  "  as  supposed  "  (d>s  ivofii^eroYoi  3  :  23, 
are  later  interpolations  in  the  interests  of  a  supernatural  birth.  The  present 
writer  has  discussed  these  questions  at  considerable  length  in  a  former  work 
(.4  Critical  Examination  of  the  Evidences  for  tlie  Doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
1908),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for  details. 

2Dupuis  (1742-1809  A.  D.)  is  the  real  "father"  of  the  more  modem  form 
of  mythicism.    See  L'origine  de  tons  les  cultes  (1794). 

24 


THE  ANNUNCIATION  AND  CONCEPTION  25 

The  criticism  of  Strauss  dealing  with  the  annunciations 
and  the  conception,  which  we  will  take  first,  is,  however, 
less  concerned  with  any  explanation.  It  is  chiefly  con- 
centrated on  the  impossibility  of  the  supernatural  char- 
acter commonly  ascribed  to  these  two  events.  It  may 
be  summed  up  as  follows:  The  announcement  to  the 
priest  Zacharias,  by  the  angel  Gabriel,  that  a  son  will  be 
born  to  him,  is  described  as  "  the  first  point  which  shocks 
all  modern  conceptions"  {The  Life  of  Jesus,  English  trans- 
lation, 1838,  chap.  1,  p.  98).  By  this  he  means  that  the 
thought  of  the  age  rejects  "the  reality  of  angels,"  who 
were  unquestionably  accepted  by  the  Jews  (with  the 
exception  of  the  Sadducees)  and  the  early  Christians  as 
actual  beings  existent  in  a  spiritual  world,  but  also  oc- 
casionally manifesting  themselves  in  this  material  sphere. 
He  finds,  too,  the  " dumbness"  which  fell  upon  Zacharias 
" unreasonable,"  and  the  other  details  of  the  vision  incon- 
sistent and  incredible.  The  previous  proposals  of  Paulus 
to  rationalise  these  stories  are  also  rejected.1 

Similar  objections  are  taken  to  the  story  of  the  annun- 
ciation to  Mary.  Moreover,  the  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  are,  in  several  respects,  held  to  be  mutually 
inconsistent  and  even  contradictory.  Thus:  (1)  in  the 
former  the  " apparition"  is  merely  an  " angel  of  the  Lord" 
(ayyeXos  Kvpiov);  in  Luke  he  is  specifically  called  "the 
angel  Gabriel"  (o  ayyeXos  VafipujX);  (2)  this  angel  ap- 
pears to  Joseph  in  Matthew;  to  Mary  in  Luke;  (3)  in 
Matthew  the  appearance  takes  place  in  a  dream;  in 
Luke  it  occurs  in  the  wakeful  state;  (4)  in  Matthew  the 
communication  is  made  after  pregnancy;  in  Luke  before 
it;  (5)  according  to  Matthew  its  object  was  to  tranquil- 
lise  Joseph;    according  to  Luke  it  was  to  anticipate  all 

1  Paulus  (1 761-185 1)  has  rationalised  the  apparition  in  Matthew  as  a 
natural  dream,  while  the  appearance  to  Mary  (recorded  in  Luke),  he 
thought,  was  that  of  some  human  being  who  announced  what  was  a  very 
probable  event — the  birth  of  a  son.  A  recent  work  (191 5)  on  the  subject 
is  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament,  G.  H.  Box,  M.A. 


26    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

offense  by  a  preliminary  announcement  to  Mary  (chap. 
3,  pp.  141  and  142). * 

As  regards  the  actual  conception,  Strauss  freely  ad- 
mits (chap.  3,  pp.  156  and  157)  that  "the  expression  of 
Matthew,  'that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy 
Ghost/  and  the  word  '  overshadow ?2  employed  by  Luke, 
clearly  puts  divine  virtue  in  the  place  of  the  fecundating 
principle  .  .  .  nevertheless "  he  maintains  that  "the  seri- 
ous difficulties  which  surround  it  scarcely  allow  us  to  fol- 
low out  that  idea."3 

The  chief  difficulty  in  the  narrative,  however,  is 
summed  up  on  the  same  page  (157)  in  the  following 
sentence:  "It  is  physiologically  certain,"  says  Strauss, 
"that  the  concourse  of  two  human  bodies,  of  different 
sexes,  is  necessary  to  generate  and  develop  the  germ  of 
a  new  human  being."  Furthermore,  it  [the  partheno- 
genetic  birth]  would  involve  the  suspension  of  a  natural 
law;  "but  to  suspend  a  natural  law,  established  by  him- 
self,  God  could  not  have  a  motive  sufficient  to  show 

1  It  is  more  strictly  correct  to  say  that  the  Matthaean  and  Lucan  narra- 
tives here  are  intended  by  their  compilers  to  be  complementary,  Luke  deal- 
ing generally  with  the  incidents  of  the  annunciation  and  conception  from 
a  different  standpoint,  and  also,  in  general,  inserting  much  that  Matthew 
omits. 

2  Doctor  F.  C.  Conybeare  (Myth,  Magic  and  Morals,  1909,  pp.  204  and 
205),  while  admitting  that  the  word  iiriaiaafa  ("overshadow")  is  generally 
interpreted  as  signifying  an  impregnation  [ !  ]  of  the  Virgin  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  [though  in  such  a  case  there  would  be  no  true  virginal  birth,  or  par- 
thenogenesis], adds  that  it  usually  signifies  no  more  than  "  to  hide,"  or  "  con- 
ceal." Among  the  Jews,  "it  was  a  common  belief,"  he  says,  "that  women 
with  child  were  peculiarly  liable  to  the  assaults  of  demons"  (refer  to  Rev. 
12);  accordingly,  "by  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  upon  the  mother  Luke  may 
have  meant  no  more  than  that  the  child,  conceived  as  usual,  received  a 
peculiar  sanctity  before  it  was  born,  just  as  John  the  Baptist  also  (Luke 
1:15)  was  'to  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  even  from  his  mother's  womb.' " 

3  Professor  C.  Clemen  {Primitive  Christianity  and  Its  Non-Jewish  Sources, 
p.  296)  argues  that  if  the  Gospel  idea  had  been  derived  from  Greek  mythical 
influences  one  would  have  expected  to  find  "an  act  of  divine  procreation" 
here.  But  we  do  not  find  this;  and  the  overshadowing  of  Mary  is,  there- 
fore, comparable  to  that  referred  to  in  Mark  9  :  7  and  parallels;  cf.  also 
Acts  s  :  15. 


THE  ANNUNCIATION  AND  CONCEPTION  27 

that  such  a  suspension  was  indispensable  to  the  obtain- 
ing of  results  worthy  of  him." 

Finally,  after  noticing  various  alleged  pagan  analogues 
referred  to  by  some  of  the  Christian  fathers  and  others, 
and  noting  that  Isaiah  7  :  14  was  applied  to  Jesus  in  the 
early  Christian  church:  "Jesus,  as  the  Messiah,"  said 
they,  "ought,  agreeably  to  that  passage,  to  be  born  of  a 
virgin  by  a  divine  operation,"  and  "that  which  ought  to 
be,"  they  took  for  granted,  "had  really  taken  place"; 
thus,  from  the  influence  of  the  above  tendency,  and  the 
supposed  necessity  of  the  doctrine,  he  concludes  that 
there  was  developed  dogmatically  "a  philosophic  myth 
upon  the  birth  of  Jesus."1 

The  critical  attitude  of  Strauss,  if  not  very  profound, 
or  characterised  by  deep  spiritual  insight,  is  at  least 
generally  sensible,  and  merits  even  at  this  time  careful 
attention.  It  is,  however,  nowadays  to  some  extent  ob- 
solete, and,  moreover,  has  from  time  to  time  been  effect- 
ively dealt  with  by  various  writers.  We  will,  therefore, 
here  only  briefly  discuss  the  above  summary  of  his 
objections,  and  then  turn  to  the  more  important  and 
deeper-reaching  criticism  of  our  own  day. 

His  difficulty  with  the  question  of  the  apparition  is 
thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  man  and  his  thought, 
and  no  doubt  of  the  age  in  which  he  wrote.  The  great 
idealist  philosophers  of  Germany — Kant2  and  Fichte  and, 
above  all,  Hegel — had  passed  away.  Schelling  alone  re- 
mained, still  striving  to  build  up  an  ideal  system  which 

1  Strauss  (p.  160)  declares  that  "when  the  Apostle  Paul  says  that  he 
[Jesus]  was  born  of  a  woman  (Gal.  4  :  4)  he  could  not  desire  to  convey  in  that 
expression  a  denial  of  the  masculine  participation."  But  the  phrase  yevb- 
fievou  4k  ywaiKds  is  more  correctly  translated  "descended  from  a  woman," 
which  seems  indirectly  to  imply  an  absence  of  male  participation.  And  a 
great  deal  would  also  depend  upon  whether  our-  present  birth-stories  were 
current  in  St.  Paul's  time  and  known  to  him.  Further,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered that  the  rabbinical  physiology  of  the  period  admitted  both  the  pos- 
sibility and  the  existence  of  abnormal  conceptions. 

2  Kant  was  a  critical  idealist. 


28    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

would  be  permanent.  Their  systems  of  thought  were 
everywhere  yielding  to  newer  ones  based  upon  inductive 
reasoning  and  the  modern  scientific  method,  a  fitting 
prelude  to  the  dawn  of  an  era  of  great  invention  and 
material  prosperity  throughout  the  world.1  The  influ- 
ences of  this  coming  change  are  discernible  throughout 
the  Leben  Jesu.  This  fact,  indeed,  explains  the  "shock" 
which  the  idea  of  an  "apparition''  of  any  kind  produces 
in  his  mind.  Such  a  concept  is  wholly  outside  his  ken 
and  quite  beyond  the  horizon  of  nineteenth-century  ma- 
terialism. Had  he  lived  a  hundred  years  later,  or  in  our 
own  days,  for  example,  and  been  able  to  consult,  and 
even  verify,  the  carefully  sorted  records  of  the  Society 
for  Psychical  Research,  the  shock  might  have  been  less, 
and  his  views  upon  such  subjects  might  have  been  some- 
what modified,  or  at  least  expressed  with  greater  cau- 
tion. If  there  be  a  spiritual  world  behind  the  mere  phe- 
nomena of  matter,  which  makes  up  the  visible  universe, 
is  it  incredible  that  it  should  have  spiritual  inhabitants — 
high  intelligences,  who  are  capable,  at  times,  of  mani- 
festing themselves  to,  and  communicating  with,  man?2 

Again,  as  regards  the  Jewish  scheme  of  angels,  we  are 
not  of  necessity  committed  to  it,  especially  in  detail. 
We  have  no  certain  knowledge  of  the  matter,  and,  there- 
fore, may  wisely  defer  judgment.  Gabriel  (/tf'HpS,  "man 
of  God,"  cf.  Dan.  8  :  16;  g  :  21)  maybe  one  of  those  high 
spiritual  beings;    he  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be  merely 

1The  disintegrating  influences  of  the  "Left- Wing"  Hegelianism,  which 
Strauss  at  that  time  professed,  must  be  added  to  the  influence  of  the  new 
scientific  method.  Strauss,  in  the  end,  died  a  materialistic  monist  of  a  pes- 
simistic type. 

2  It  is  at  least  worth  noting  that  so  distinguished  a  mathematician  and 
acute  a  lawyer  as  the  late  Professor  Augustus  de  Morgan  could  write:  "I 
am  perfectly  convinced,  in  a  manner  which  should  make  unbelief  impossi- 
ble, that  I  have  seen  things  called  spiritual,  which  cannot  be  taken  by  a 
rational  being  to  be  capable  of  explanation  by  imposture,  coincidence,  or 
mistake."  (From  Matter  to  Spirit,  S.  E.  de  Morgan,  preface  by  Professor  de 
Morgan,  p.  v.). 


THE  ANNUNCIATION  AND  CONCEPTION  29 

the  symbol  expressive  of  a  divine  communication  to  man. 
The  question  of  the  "reality"  (as  we  would  say) ,  and  the 
objectivity  of  apparitions  of  all  kinds,  is  still  one  which 
awaits  a  final  solution.  Are  they  objective  facts,  of  a 
spiritual  or  psychical  kind,  or  are  they,  mainly,  or  merely, 
subjective  phenomena,  wholly  hallucinatory,  perhaps,  in 
their  nature?  And  even  if  these  phenomena  be  ulti- 
mately classed  under  the  latter  category,  they  may — in 
some  cases  at  least — retain  an  element  of  objectivity; 
they  may  yet  prove  to  be  the  symbolic  reflexes  of  a 
thought,  or  message,  projected  to  our  minds  from  the 
mind  of  the  Eternal,  a  thought  which,  in  the  process 
of  reception,  we  have  pictorialised  and  posited  without 
our  consciousness,  subject  to  the  universal  forms  of  time 
and  space,  under  which  all  our  concepts  must  be  sub- 
sumed in  order  to  be  comprehensible  by  our  sense- 
regulated  intellects.  Strauss  does  not  even  contemplate 
these  possibilities;  he  is  already  practically  hidebound 
in  a  crude  system  of  materialism,  and,  therefore,  imper- 
vious to  all  impact  of  any  spiritual  world. 

The  "dumbness"  of  Zacharias,  again,  is  after  all  a  com- 
mon experience  of  many  who  have  found  themselves — or 
thought  that  they  have  found  themselves — in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  preternatural.  The  fear,  the  paralysis  of 
speech,  the  trembling  of  the  limbs,  common  in  every 
such  situation,  have  been  universally  borne  witness  to 
in  all  ages  and  in  all  lands.  We  find  those  phenomena 
vividly  described  in  the  words  of  Eliphaz  the  Temanite 
by  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Job  (4  :  14-16) : 

"Fear  came  upon  me  and  a  trembling, 
Which  caused  all  my  bones  to  shake. 
Then  a  spirit  (n-n)  passed  before  my  face; 
The  hair  of  my  flesh  rose  up; 

One  stood  [before  me]  whose  form  I  could  not  discern; 
A  shape  was  before  mine  eyes; 
There  was  silence;  and  I  heard  a  voice." 


30    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Such  experiences,  whether  objective  or  subjective,  may 
be  "  unreasonable " ;  no  doubt  they  are.  But  they  re- 
quire sufficient  explanation,  and  mere  human  reason  (as 
Kant  has  shown)  is  perhaps  hardly  equal  to  the  task 
of  dealing  adequately  with  the  things  of  a  supersensual 
world.  It  can,  however,  observe,  and  analyse,  and  record 
its  experiences. 

The  divergencies  between  the  Matthaean  and  Lucan 
narratives  at  this  point  are  trivial  matters  in  compari- 
son, and  doubtless  are  (assuming  the  narratives  to  have 
some  historic  basis)  largely  due  to  the  difficulty,  always 
felt  in  such  cases,  of  securing  full  and  accurate  reports 
of  abnormal  experience,  and  to  the  difference  in  the 
apprehensive  powers  during  the  sleeping  and  the  wak- 
ing states  respectively.  Some  harmonisation,  however, 
is  possible  here. 

The  difficulty  arising  out  of  the  affirmed  partheno- 
genetic  nature  of  the  conception  is  a  much  greater  and 
more  serious  one,  and  Strauss,  speaking  from  a  purely 
scientific  point  of  view,  is  but  stating  a  truth  when  he 
says  that  human  parthenogenesis  is  unknown  in  the 
annals  of  science.  But  when  he  adds  that,  in  order  to 
bring  it  about,  God  would  have  to  suspend  a  natural 
law  established  by  himself,  he  oversteps  the  mark.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  the  use  even  of  the  term  "law"  in  the 
theoretical  sciences  is  in  reality  improper.  There  is  no 
such  law  involved  in  the  genesis  of  creatures,  as  the 
frequent  examples  of  parthenogenesis  in  many  groups  of 
beings  below  the  vertebrates  in  the  scale  of  develop- 
ment clearly  show.  All  we  are  entitled  to  affirm  on  this 
subject  is  that,  so  far  as  careful  observation  has  ex- 
tended among  the  higher  orders  of  creation,  gamo genesis 
appears  to  be  the  invariable  rule.  This  fact,  however, 
is  something  quite  different  from  the  dogmatic  assertion 
that  it  is  an  absolute  law  even  for  mankind. 


THE  BIRTH  31 

The  Birth 

In  his  statement  of  the  mythical  interpretation  of  the 
birth-story,  Professor  Drews  is  remarkably  clear.  He 
instances  {The  Christ  Myth,  p.  96)  such  gods  as  Mithra, 
"the  sol  invictus  of  the  Romans";  Dionysus,  "closely  re- 
lated to  the  season  gods  of  nearer  Asia,"  who  was  hon- 
oured as  "Liknites,"  the  infant  in  the  cradle  (the  win- 
nowing fan).  At  the  annual  celebration  of  the  birth  of 
Osiris,  on  the  6th  of  January,  "the  priests  produced  the 
figure  of  an  infant  from  the  sanctuary,  and  showed  it  to 
the  people,  as  a  picture  of  a  new-born  god."  He  then 
further  proceeds  as  follows  {op.  cit.,  pp.  100  and  101) : 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that  we  have  before  us  in  the  Vedic 
Agni-cult  the  original  source  of  all  the  stories  of  the 
birth  of  the  fire-gods  and  sun-gods.  These  gods  usually 
enter  life  in  darkness  and  concealment.  Thus  the  Cre- 
tan Zeus  was  born  in  a  cavern,  Mithras,  Dionysus,  and 
Hermes  in  a  gloomy  grotto,  Horus  in  the  stable  (temple) 
of  the  holy  cow  (Isis).  Jesus,  too,  was  born  at  dead 
of  night  in  a  lowly  stable  at  Bethlehem.1  The  original 
ground  for  this  consists  in  the  fact  that  Agni,  in  the  form 
of  a  spark,  comes  into  existence  in  the  dark  hollow  of  the 
hole  bored  in  the  [fire-]stick.  The  hymns  of  the  Rig- 
Veda  often  speak  of  the  'secret  birth'  and  the  conceal- 
ment of  Agni.  They  describe  the  gods  as  they  set  out 
in  order  to  seek  the  infant.  They  make  the  Angiras  dis- 
cover it  lying  in  concealment,  and  it  grows  up  in  hiding 
(see  Rig-Veda,  I,  72,  2;  V,  n,  6,  etc.).  But  the  idea  of 
the  fire-god  being  born  in  a  stable  is  also  foreshadowed 
in  the  Rig-Veda.  For  not  only  are  the  vessels  of  milk 
and  butter  ready  for  the  anointing  compared  with  cows, 

1  In  a  note  he  adds:  "According  to  early  Christian  writers,  such  as  Justin 
and  Origen,  Jesus  also  came  into  the  world  in  a  cave,  and  Jerome  complains 
(Ep.  58)  that  in  his  time  the  heathens  celebrated  the  feast  of  the  birth  of 
Tammuz  at  Bethlehem  in  the  same  cave  in  which  Jesus  was  born." 


32    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

but  Ushas,  the  goddess  of  dawn,  who  is  present  at  his 
birth,  is  called  a  red  milch  cow,  and  of  men  it  is  said 
that  they  flocked  like  cows  to  a  warm  stable  to  see  Agni, 
whom  his  mother  held  lovingly  upon  her  lap"  (Rig-Veda, 
III,  i,  7;  X,  4,  2,  etc.). 

Again  (p.  102):  "The  metaphorical  name  of  stable  for 
the  place  of  sacrifice  attains  a  new  significance  from  the 
fact  that  the  sun,  during  a  certain  epoch  of  the  world 
(something  between  3000  and  800  B.  C),  at  the  begin- 
ning of  spring  passed  through  the  constellation  of  the 
Bull  and  at  the  time  of  the  winter  solstice  commenced 
its  course  between  the  Ox  (Bull)  and  the  Great  Bear, 
which  anciently  was  also  called  the  Ass.1  The  birth  of 
the  god  is  said  to  have  been  in  secret  because  it  took 
place  at  night.  His  mother  is  a  virgin,  since  at  midnight 
of  the  winter  solstice  the  constellation  of  the  Virgin  is  on 
the  eastern  horizon  (Jeremias,  Babylonisches  im  N.  T., 
35,  note  1;  cf.  Dupuis,  Vorigine  de  tous  les  cultes,  in  /.). 
Similarly,  Mr.  Robertson  (Christianity  and  Mythology, 
p.  212):  "We  should  not  forget  the  suggestion  of  Dupuis 
and  Volney,  that  the  birth  of  the  sun-child  between  the 
ox  and  ass  is  simply  a  fable  based  on  the  fact  that  in  the 
zodiacal  celestial  sphere  the  sun  would  come  at  the  win- 
ter solstice  between  the  Bull  and  Ursa  Major,2  sometimes 
represented  by  the  ancients  as  a  Boar,  sometimes  as  a 
Hippopotamus,  sometimes  as  the  Ass  of  Typhon.  But 
the  conception  may  be  older  than  the  zodiac,  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  stable  being,  as  we  have  seen,  the  sky 
as  the  home  of  the  cloud  cows.     The  sun-god  is,  in  this 

1  Cf.  Volney,  Die  Ruinen,  1791  (Reclam),  note  83  to  chap.  13.  l  This  is 
the  reason  why  the  infant  Christ  was  represented  in  early  Christian  pic- 
tures lying  in  his  mother's  lap,  or  in  a  cradle  between  an  Ox  and  an  Ass." 
But  Volney  merely  represents  the  constellation  on  his  planisphere  as  a  boar, 
and  labels  it  "Bear  Boar,  Ass  Typhon."  He  appears  to  have  no  authority 
for  this ! 

2  But  see  ibid.,  p.  142,  where  the  sun  in  the  Bull  is  said  to  open  the  spring ! 
Now  it  is  between  the  Bull  and  the  Bear  from  May  to  August. 


THE  BIRTH  33 

primary  sense,  born  of  two  mothers,  Earth  and  Sky,  of 
the  earth  in  the  cave,  of  the  sky  in  the  stable." 

Mr.  Robertson  also  maintains  {op.  ciL,  p.  257)  that 
the  late  Christian  myth  of  the  "synchronous  birth"  of 
Christ's  cousin  John  the  Baptist  is  reasonably  to  be  traced 
to  the  Buddhist  myth  of  the  synchronous  birth  of  the 
Buddha's  cousin  Ananda  rather  than  to  the  Krishnaite 
motive  of  Arjuna,  or  Bala  Rama.  This  course,  he  thinks, 
is  reasonable,  chiefly  because  the  Krishnaite  system  gives 
an  origin  to  the  Buddhist  myth. 

The  general  relation  which  such  gods  of  nature-cults 
as  Mithra,  Dionysus,  Osiris,  etc.,  bear  to  Jesus — if  there 
be  any — will  be  dealt  with  from  time  to  time  through- 
out this  work.  Meanwhile,  we  may  remark  here  that 
the  birthday  of  Mithra,  as  a  solar  deity,  was  celebrated 
just  after  the  winter  solstice,  when  the  power  of  the  sun 
begins  to  revive  again.  That  Jesus  was  not  a  mere  equiv- 
alent of  Mithra  is  shown  partly  by  the  fact  that  there  is 
a  good  deal  of  evidence  to  indicate  that  he  was  born  in 
the  month  of  October.1 

The  myth  of  Zagreus,  "the  winter  Dionysus,"  seems 
to  have  originated  in  Crete.  The  story  ran  that  the  hand 
of  Persephone,  daughter  of  Demeter,  the  earth-goddess, 
had  been  sought  by  all  the  gods.  But  her  mother  con- 
cealed her  in  a  cave.  Zeus,  having  discovered  her  re- 
treat, and  changed  his  form  into  that  of  a  serpent,  vis- 
ited her,  and  the  fruit  of  their  union  was  Zagreus. 

The  epithet  "Liknites,"  as  applied  to  Dionysus,  was 
derived  from  the  Xfovov,  a  broad   basket  in  which  the 

1  This  is  founded  partly  upon  what  is  known  of  the  order  in  which  "  the 
course  of  Abia"  (Luke  1  :  5)  served  in  the  temple.  Moreover,  in  Judaea, 
December  comes  in  the  height  of  the  rainy  season,  when  cattle  and  sheep 
are  not  out  on  the  hills,  but  stabled  for  the  winter.  The  earliest  church 
commemorated  it  at  various  times  from  September  to  March,  until  in  354 
A.  D.  Pope  Julius  I  assimilated  the  festival  with  that  of  the  birth  of  Mithra 
(December  25),  in  order  to  facilitate  the  more  complete  Christianisation  of 
the  empire. 


34    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

corn  was  placed  after  threshing.  It  was  sacred  to  Diony- 
sus, and  was  carried  about  at  his  festivals  with  the  sacred 
utensils  and  first-fruits,  and  the  infant  Dionysus,  repre- 
sented by  a  small  doll,  was  sometimes  carried  in  it.1 

The  attempt  to  find  an  analogue  for  this  in  the  man- 
ger ((fxiTVTj)  of  Luke,  which  Mr.  Robertson  calls  the 
"manger-basket,"  is  vain.  The  one  was  a  basket  for 
corn,  the  chief  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth-goddess,  some- 
times used  by  the  country  folk  as  a  cradle;  the  other 
was  merely  a  feeding-trough  for  cattle,  a  totally  different 
thing,  and  (unlike  the  liknon)  possessing  no  mythical 
significance  whatever. 

The  birth-story  found  in  the  Gospels  cannot  by  any 
possibility  be  regarded  as  an  analogue,  or  an  historicised 
variant  of  this  sensual  myth,  which  really  represents 
simply  the  fecundation  of  earth  by  sky,  and  the  produc- 
tion thereby  of  the  various  fruits,  children  of  the  earth- 
mother. 

Osiris,  again,  whose  rebirth,  celebrated  under  the  form 
of  the  young  Horus  (the  Osiris,  or  sun,  of  the  next  day) 
was  closely  connected  with  the  mysteries  of  Isis,  the 
sister-wife  of  Osiris  the  father.  These  Isiac  mysteries 
were  among  the  secret  (i.  e.,  sexual)  ones,  and  abounded 
in  gross  superstition,  vile  juggling,  and  scandalous  inde- 
cency. Here,  too,  a  small  effigy  of  Osiris  (as  Horus)  was 
shown  to  the  people  by  the  priests  of  Isis.2  But  it  still 
remains  to  be  demonstrated  that  the  Bethlehem  birth- 

1  For  the  use  of  the  winnowing-fan  as  a  cradle,  and  the  meaning  o£  the 
custom,  see  "The  Golden  Bough,"  The  Spirits  of  the  Corn  and  of  the  Wild, 
vol.  I,  pp.  5  /. 

2  Macrobius,  Saturn.,  I,  18.  Perhaps  this  practise  in  later  ages  was  imi- 
tated by  many  churches,  and  doubtless  is  the  origin  of  the  somewhat  child- 
ish "  Bethlehem  Tableaux  "  frequently  exhibited  at  Christmas  time.  Indeed, 
Conrady  {Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheitsgeschichte  Jesu)  derives  the 
birth-story  of  Jesus  from  the  Isis-my\h\  that  is,  from  Egyptian  in  prefer- 
ence to  Babylonian,  or  Hellenistic,  sources.  The  well-known  legend  cut  on 
the  Metternich  Stele  says  that  Isis  brought  forth  her  son  Horus  among  the 
papyrus  swamps  of  Egypt  and  reared  him  there. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  AGNI  35 

narrative  bears  any  real  relation  to  such  mythic  stories, 
or  that  the  early  Christians  had  any  such  mysteries, 
wherein  effigies  of  the  infant  Jesus,  or,  indeed,  any  ob- 
jects, were  exhibited  to  initiates.  Neither  is  it  in  the 
least  degree  probable  that  the  first-century  Christians 
recognised  any  kinship  between  the  story  of  Christ  and 
these  myths;  where  they  mention  them  it  is  to  con- 
trast, not  to  identify,  a  thing  which  they  would  gladly 
have  done  to  gain  converts  had  Jesus  been  regarded  as 
one  of  the  cult-gods. 

The  Birth  of  Agni 

We  next  come  to  what  is  the  main  point  in  the  astral 
system  of  Drews — the  original  source  of  all  the  stories 
of  the  fire-gods  and  sun-gods:  this  is  the  Agni-cult. 
The  birth  of  the  earthly  fire-god  (Agni)  was  celebrated 
by  the  ceremony  of  kindling  the  spark  in  the  fire-sticks. 
The  spark,  produced  by  friction,  was  the  infant  Agni,  who 
grew  to  be  a  fire — the  earthly  manifestation  of  the  god. 

Now,  Professor  Drews  emphasises  several  points:  (i) 
These  gods  were  usually  born  in  darkness  or  caverns; 
in  the  case  of  Agni  in  the  dark  hollow  of  the  wood  (the 
stable)  in  which  the  drilling-stick  was  twirled.  This 
ceremony  is  (2)  held  to  be  comparable  with  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  because  in  the  Rig-Veda  the  vessels  of  milk  and 
butter1  near  by  are  compared  to  cows,  and  Ushas,  the 
dawn-goddess,  who  is  present,  is  called  a  red  milch  cow; 
furthermore,  it  is  said  that  men  flocked  to  see  Agni  in  his 
mother's  lap,  "like  cows  to  a  warm  stable." 

xThe  butter  was  for  pouring  upon  the  newly  kindled  fire  (Agni).  The 
Agni-hotra  was  a  sacrifice  consisting  of  burnt  offerings  and  libations  of  but- 
ter and  milk  made  every  morning,  and  was  one  of  the  five  religious  duties 
of  the  Hindu  householder.  The  "birth"  of  Agni,  as  the  earthly  fire,  was 
thus  celebrated  daily.  "Born  from  the  floods  of  heaven  (the  Thunder- 
shower)  he  first  came  down  to  earth  as  lightning  .  .  .  and  remained  hid- 
den in  the  recesses  of  wood  until  called  forth  by  friction,  when  he  suddenly 
springs  forth  into  gleaming  brightness." 


36    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

We  must  confess  that  we  do  not  see  how  all  this  affects 
the  question,  or  establishes  any  parallel  between  the  birth 
of  Agni  and  the  birth  of  Jesus !  Jesus  was  born  in  the  dead 
of  night,  says  Professor  Drews.  Whence  does  he  derive 
this  information?  The  narrative  of  Luke  merely  says 
that  the  shepherds  were  informed  of  the  fact  during  the 
night.  The  event  might,  therefore,  have  taken  place  dur- 
ing the  day,  or  earlier  in  the  evening.  (See  Luke  2  :  8 
and  n.)  Neither  can  we  say  that  it  happened  in  dark- 
ness, or  that  the  stable  was  a  cave.  It  is  true  that  caves 
were  then  often  used  as  stables;  also  that  Justin  and  Je- 
rome say  that  it  was  a  cave.  But  their  information  seems 
to  have  been  derived  from  later  legends,  which,  largely  fol- 
lowing the  pagan  myths,  are  all  for  a  cave.1  There  is 
much  assumption  in  this  hypothesis  of  Doctor  Drews, 
and  much  is  quoted  from  dubious  sources.  The  myth- 
ical additions  to  the  original  story  are  elaborately  worked 
up  in  the  Apocryphs,2  which  differ  toto  ccelo  both  in  style 
and  matter  from. the  canonical  Gospels. 

Lastly,  as  regards  the  details  in  the  story  as  thus  de- 
veloped, the  idea  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  took  place  in 
the  midst  of  the  stabled  animals  is  certainly  inconsist- 
ent with  Luke's  definite  statement  that  these  were  out 
on  the  hills,  and  being  watched  by  shepherds.     The  ass3 

1  Doctor  Plummer  says  (St.  Luke,  "Critical  Commentaries"):  "In  Ori- 
gen's  time  the  cave  was  shown,  and  the  manger  also  (Cont.  Cels.,  I,  51). 
One  suspects  that  the  cave  may  be  a  supposed  prophecy  turned  into  history. 
.  .  .  Isaiah  33  :  16,  LXX  version  (ofrros  oIkt}(th  iv  im/'tjXcJj  <nrri\al(#  irirpas 
dxvpas)  was  supposed  to  point  to  birth  in  a  cave,  and  then  the  cave  may 
have  been  imagined  in  order  to  fit."    It  is  very  probable. 

2  These,  however,  declare  that  there  was  a  great  light  suffusing  the  cave  1 

3  The  statement,  borrowed  by  Robertson  and  Drews,  that  the  Great  Bear 
was  anciently  called  "  the  Ass,"  is  more  than  highly  questionable,  and  the 
authorities  cited  (Dupuis  and  Volney)  are  worthless  upon  such  questions. 
If  it  ever  were  so  named  it  would  be  found  in  the  Egyptian  version  of  the 
constellations;  but  it  certainly  does  not  occur  there  or  in  the  Chaldean 
and  Greek  lists.  On  the  planisphere  of  Dendera,  however  (our  chief  au- 
thority for  Egypt),  near  the  place  of  the  Great  Bear,  a  figure  usually  called 
"The  Thigh"  is  shown,  and  close  by  it  is  another  one,  erect  and  supposed 


THE  BIRTH  OF  AGNI  37 

might,  of  course,  be  regarded  as  the  beast  of  some  travel- 
ler; but  the  ox  would  not  be  in  his  stall  at  night  at  that 
time  of  the  year.  As  for  the  scene,  represented  in  much 
later  Christian  art,  of  the  Holy  Family  grouped  together 
amidst  these  animals,  this  concept  was  derived  wholly 
from  the  fifth-century  apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Pseudo- 
Matthew,  chap.  14,  and  the  passage  so  often  quoted  from 
Hab.  3  :  2  (M.  T.) — "O  Jahveh,  revive  thy  work  in  the 
midst  of  the  years;  in  the  midst  of  the  years  make  it 
known" — in  the  LXX  version  reads,  "in  the  midst  of  two 
animals  thou  shalt  be  known";1  being  in  this  version  ap- 
parently derived  from  Isaiah  1  :  3 — "The  ox  knoweth  his 
owner,  and  the  ass  his  master's  manger;  but  Israel  doth 
not  know,  my  people  doth  not  consider" — a  passage  void 
of  all  Messianic  implications.  The  LXX  version  here  is 
really  a  mere  misreading  of  the  older  Hebrew  text  and  of 
no  critical  value. 

Professor  Drews's  further  explanation  that  the  mother 
of  Jesus  was  termed  a  "virgin"  because  at  midnight  of 
the  winter  solstice  the  constellation  of  the  Virgin  is  on 
the  eastern  horizon  cannot  be  upheld,  since,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  is  practically  certain  that  the  birth  of  Jesus  did 
not  take  place  at  that  time  of  the  year,  and  was  not  even 

to  be  a  Hippopotamus.  This  latter  was  probably  merely  an  Egyptian  vari- 
ant of  the  Great  Bear  of  the  Greeks;  for  the  Hippopotamus  was  familiar 
to  the  Egyptians,  whereas  the  Bear  was  not.  The  Dendera  planisphere 
occurs  in  a  temple,  erected  about  the  time  of  Hadrian  (early  second  cen- 
tury A.  D.),  and  is,  therefore,  late.  Moreover,  it  is  also  merely  an  Egyptian 
variant  of  the  ancient  constellations  preserved  for  us  in  the  writings  of 
Aratus,  Hipparchus,  and  Ptolemy.  It  will  be  found  figured  on  Plate  III  of 
Boll's  Sphara,  and  may  be  compared  with  the  Farnese  globe  of  about  A.  D. 
300.  Doctor  Budge  says  {The  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  vol.  II,  p.  312)  that  the 
Egyptian  equivalent  of  our  Great  Bear  was  the  Bull  Meskheti. 

1  /.  e.,  D"n  a]W  (iv  fj.e<r$  dvo  £i&tav)  for  VP*n  D\stf.  This  latter  reading 
is,  according  to  Driver,  the  older  and  the  true  one.  See  an  able  article  on 
the  subject  by  A.  Frost,  Contemp.  Rev.,  December,  1903,  pp.  873  jf.  Pro- 
fessor Weber,  the  eminent  Sanscritist,  states  that  the  ox  and  the  ass  figuring 
in  the  Krishna  birth-ritual  are  borrowed  from  debased  Christian  sources, 
doubtless  the  very  late  apocryph  referred  to  above. 


38    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

commemorated  then  until  the  fourth  century.1  Indeed, 
the  whole  set  of  correspondences  which  are  worked  out 
between  the  earthly  celebration  of  the  birth  of  the  sun 
(or  fire)  god,  regarded  as  a  reflexion  of  the  same  drama 
enacted  mystically  in  the  heavens,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
though  it  is  an  ingenious  speculation,  and  its  working 
out  a  clever  piece  of  special  pleading,  is  thoroughly  un- 
real. The  entire  theory,  in  short,  when  carefully  exam- 
ined, is  full  of  flaws,  and,  as  a  consequence  of  this,  it  is 
unconvincing  to  the  thoughtful  reader. 

But  we  have,  besides  all  this,  the  usual  parallels  drawn 
from  India.  Both  Mr.  Robertson  {Christianity  and  Myth- 
ology, p.  319)  and  Professor  Drews  {The  Christ  Myth, 
p.  105) — not  to  mention  other  writers — have  laid  great 
stress  on  the  older  legend  of  Krishna.  The  former,  in  par- 
ticular, regards  the  bringing  forth  of  the  god-child  on  a 
journey  as  an  incident  quite  common  in  this  type  of  myth. 

But  other  men  besides  " god-children"  have  been  born 
on  a  journey,  and  Mr.  Robertson's  half-dozen  examples, 
when  carefully  examined,  are  not  always  quite  appo- 
site. Neither  can  Jesus  be  correctly  termed  a  "  god- 
child/' in  the  pagan  sense  of  the  term.  In  the  myths, 
the  gods  when  desirous  of  becoming  the  fathers  of  chil- 
dren by  mortal  women  usually  presented  themselves  in 
mortal  or  animal  guise  to  the  prospective  mothers,  some- 
times even  as  duplicates  of  the  women's  husbands.2  Nei- 
ther, again,  were  the  mothers  of  such  god-children  as 
Krishna,  Cyrus,  etc.,  "virgins"  in  the  Biblical  sense  of 
that  term.3  Both  DevakI  and  Mandane,  and  indeed  all 
the  mothers  that  have  been  quoted  in  this  connexion, 

*"To  adapt  Christian  festivals  to  pagan  ones"  (Chrysostom,  Homily 
XXXI). 

2  The  credulity  formerly  displayed  by  many,  even  educated,  women  in 
matters  of  this  kind  is  well  illustrated  by  the  disgraceful  story  told  by 
Jos.,  Ant.,  XVIII,  3,  4. 

3 The  term  "virgin,"  as  used  in  pagan  cults,  meant  only  an  "independ- 
ence of  the  marriage-tie";  i.  e.,  that  the  goddess  had  no  recognised  male 
partner. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  GAUTAMA  39 

were  married  women,  and,  therefore,  the  births  of  their 
sons  cannot  in  any  sense  be  termed  parthenogenetic. 

The  Birth  of  Krishna 

It  is  true,  as  he  states,  that,  according  to  one  account, 
Krishna  was  born  in  a  cow-shed,  or  stable;  but  the 
Puranic  version  of  the  event  locates  it  in  Kansa's  for- 
tress. A  careful  survey,  indeed,  of  the  whole  of  Krishna's 
birth-story  in  its  later  form  points  to  the  Apocryphs  as 
its  real  source.1 

Professor  Drews  also  mentions  several  points  which 
confirm  the  above  view:  the  dungeon  is  filled  with  light; 
the  parents,  as  well  as  others,  fall  down  before  the  child; 
and  additional  marvels  not  found  even  in  the  most  de- 
based Christian  writings.  The  marvellous  powers  of  the 
apocryphal  infant  Jesus  are  likewise  quite  outdone  by 
the  babe  Krishna,  who,  like  Herakles,  strangled  a  deadly 
snake  with  his  own  hand.2 

The  Birth  of  Gautama 

From  this  we  pass  on  to  the  birth  of  Gautama.  Here, 
again,  the  mother  is  no  "virgin,"  as  De  Bunsen  {The 
Angel  Messiah  of  Buddhists,  Essenes,  and  Christians,  p.  33) 
asserts.3    The  Lalita  vistdra  says  that  the  mother  of  a 

1  It  may  be  added  that  the  ritual  for  Krishna's  birthday  is  drawn  largely 
from  Christian  sources,  for  it  differs  from  the  early  Hindu  stories  precisely 
in  the  points  where  it  approximates  to  the  accounts  of  the  nativity  of  Jesus. 

2 We  may  add  here  that  the  "taxing-motive"  of  Vasudeva's  journey 
is  plainly  a  borrowing  of  the  mistranslation  of  the  Lucan  &Troyp&<t>ecrdcu 
(2  : 1-5),  which  word  means  not  taxing  (as  in  A.  V.),  but  "enrolment  in  a 
census  of  the  population."  This  is  mere  ignorant  copying,  apparently  from 
the  A.  V. 

3  The  Abhinishkrdmana  Sutra,  in  the  Chinese  version,  says  that  Maya 
was  married  and  lived  with  her  husband.  So  also  does  the  Lalita  vistdra. 
Mr.  de  Bunsen,  however,  speaks  of  the  Buddha  as  "conceived  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  born  of  the  virgin  Maya";  and  says  again  that,  according  to 
Buddhist  authorities:  "It  was  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  Shing-Shin,  which  de- 
scended upon  the  virgin  Maya."  But  he  gives  no  authority  for  the  state- 
ment, and  we  may  add  that  Buddhism  recognises  no  "Holy  Ghost" !    Mr. 


40    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Buddha  must  have  thirty-two  special  marks,  and  the 
thirty-first  of  these  must  be  "  faithfulness  to  marriage 
vows."  Maya,  again,  like  Devaki,  does  not  accompany 
her  husband,  for  the  same  reason  as  Mary.  We  are  told 
that  she  begged  permission  of  the  king  to  return  to  the 
town  of  her  own  people.  To  this  he  consented,  and  the 
future  Buddha  was  born,  not  in  a  cave  or  a  cow-shed,  but 
under  the  shelter  of  the  grove  Lumbini.1 

The  conception  of  Maya,  too,  though  distinctly  super- 
natural, is,  again,  neither  parthenogenetic  nor  due  to 
divine  power.  She  dreamt,  we  learn,  that  she  saw  the 
future  Buddha  approaching  her  in  the  form  of  a  six- 
tusked  white  elephant,  and  holding  a  lotus  flower.  After 
making  an  obeisance  he  seemed  to  enter  her  right  side.2 
Thereupon  wonderful  prodigies  happened,  far  beyond 
any  recorded  even  in  the  most  extravagant  of  the  Chris- 
tian Apocryphs.  The  ten  thousand  world  systems  were 
shaken,  a  great  light  appeared  in  all  of  them,  the  blind, 
deaf,  and  lame  were  healed,  and  all  the  hungry  manes 
(ghosts)  were  miraculously  fed. 

Maya  was  thenceforward,  to  the  time  of  her  delivery, 
guarded  by  four  supernatural  beings  with  drawn  swords. 
At  the  time  of  the  birth,  refreshing  showers  from  heaven 
fell  upon  the  Bodhisat  and  his  mother.  Four  kings  re- 
ceived the  babe  at  the  hands  of  the  gods,  and  as  soon 
as  he  was  born,  when  set  upon  his  feet,  the  child  walked, 
and  at  every  seventh  step  called  out:  "I  am  the  chief 
of  the  world,"  etc.3 

Hardy  also  speaks  (Manual  of  Buddhism,  1880,  p.  145,  note)  of  the  Tibetan 
scholar  Csoma  as  stating  that  the  Mongolian  accounts  affirm  the  virginity 
of  Maya,  but  adds  that  the  Tibetan  records  make  no  mention  of  it.  Pro- 
fessor Rhys  Davids  says  {Buddhism,  Hibb.  Lects.,  1881,  p.  183,  note  1) 
that  the  above  reference  "has  not  been  confirmed." 

1  So  the  Nidana  Katha;  the  Lalita  vistara  merely  mentions  a  request  to 
go  to  the  grove. 

2  The  Lalita  vistara  affirms  that  he  did  enter. 

3  The  Lalita  vistara  may  be  consulted  for  these  narratives  in  Rajendral 
Mitra's  translation.    The  whole  system  of  Buddhist  "parallels"  is  elabo- 


THE  BIRTH  OF  SAOSHYANT  41 

In  all  this  silly  and  bombastic  nonsense  we  may,  per- 
haps, recognise  here  and  there  a  faint  gleam  reflected 
from  the  birth-stories  of  the  New  Testament.  But  one 
thing  is  very  clear,  viz.,  that  the  Gospel  stories  are  neither 
borrowed  from,  nor  mere  variants  of,  the  above  accounts. 
Myths  are  frequently  superposed  upon  historical  stories; 
historical  stories  never  grow  out  of  myths  pruned  down 
and  rendered  acceptable  to  thinking  people. 

The  Birth  of  Saoshyant 

Lastly,  as  regards  the  birth-parallel  in  the  story  of 
Saoshyant,  we  have  a  case  of  preternatural  birth  more 
akin  to  rabbinical  ideas  of  agamo genesis1  than  what  is, 
strictly  speaking,  termed  parthenogenesis.  The  seed  of 
Zarathustra  was  said  to  have  been  miraculously  pre- 
served in  the  water  of  a  certain  pool,2  in  which  three 
maidens  successively  bathed,  and  of  these  one  became 
the  mother  of  this  Persian  Messiah.  It  has  been  sur- 
mised that  perhaps  the  author  of  II  Esdras  12  :  3,  25, 
51,  who  imagined  that  the  Jewish  Messiah  would  come 
out  of  the  sea,  thought  that  the  seed  of  David  might  be 
preserved  in  a  similar  manner,  and  the  Messiah  thus 
agamogenetically  conceived.  This,  however,  is  all  very 
problematical,  and,  in  any  case,  there  is  no  real  parallel 
here  with  a  strictly  parthenogenetic  conception. 

rately  worked  out  in  Professor  SeydePs  Das  Evangelium  von  Jesu  in  Seinen 
V  erhaltnissen  zu  Buddha-Saga  und  Buddha- Lehre  (1882).  Also  see  his  Die 
Baddha-Legende  und  das  Leben  Jesu,  etc.  (1889). 

1  Doctor  Conybeare  holds  that  Philo's  allegorical  language  in  De  Cheru- 
bim, xiii  /.,  respecting  the  wives  of  the  patriarchs  as  symbolical  charac- 
ters, implies  the  belief  that  their  sons  were  conceived  parthenogenetically. 
In  other  words,  Philo's  statement,  e.  g.,  that  Sepfora  (the  wife  of  Moses  (  = 
Virtue)  finds  herself  pregnant  i£  otidevos  dvqrov  (" by  no  mortal")  =  the 
iv  yao-rpl  lxou<ra  ix  HveO/uiTos  aylov  of  Matt,  i  :  18.  But  this  is  very 
doubtful.  Angels  or  demons  may  be  referred  to,  and  the  conception  re- 
garded as  gamogenetic  (cf.  Gen.  6:2,  and  see  The  Academy,  November  17, 
1894,  p.  401). 

2  "  The  triumphant  Saoshyans  will  be  born  out  of  the  water  Kaosya  from 
the  Eastern  quarter"  (Vendidad,  Fargard  XIX,  5). 


42    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  therefore,  up  to 
the  present  time,  may  be  thus  stated:  The  Gospel  story 
of  the  conception  and  birth — whether  it  be  historical  or 
otherwise — presupposes  a  peculiar  case  of  true  partheno- 
genesis, the  idea  of  which  has  not  been  borrowed  from 
either  Jewish  or  Gentile  sources. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   NARRATIVES   OF   THE   INFANCY  AND   CHILDHOOD 

We  have  now  to  consider  a  number  of  narratives  deal- 
ing with  the  stories  related  about  the  birth  and  child- 
hood of  Jesus.  The  form  in  which  these  narratives  have 
reached  us  suggests  that,  if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as 
historical  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  we  must  look 
upon  them  as  popularised  versions  of  the  incidents  in 
question,  which  have,  in  some  degree,  undergone  a 
change  of  form  in  order  to  adapt  them  to  the  intelligence 
of  the  simple  folk  who  formed  the  bulk  of  the  earliest 
converts  to  Christianity. 

The  Shepherds 

The  episode  of  the  shepherds'  visit — an  event  in  itself 
natural  enough  but  for  its  connexion  with  a  supernat- 
ural apparition — is  either  ignored  or  summarily  dealt  with 
by  the  mythicists. 

Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  in  particular,  quickly  rids  him- 
self of  the  whole  story.  He  says:  "The  shepherds  come 
from  the  same  prehistoric  sources  as  the  rest.  They  be- 
long to  the  myths  of  Cyrus  and  Krishna,  and  they  are 
more  or  less  implied  in  that  of  Hermes,  who,  on  the  day 
of  his  divine  birth,  stole  the  cloud  cows1  of  Apollo,  him- 
self a  divine  shepherd  and  god  of  shepherds"2  {Christian- 
ity and  Mythology,  sec.  "The  Cow  and  Stable  Birth,"  pp. 

32°  /•)• 

^his  idea  is  found  in  the  Rig-Veda,  where  the  clouds  are  called  the 
"cows  of  Indra." 

2  Strauss  {Life  of  Jesus,  vol.  I,  p.  214)  attempts  to  explain  the  story  of 
the  shepherds  by  the  pagan  idea  that  the  gods  frequently  appeared  to 
shepherds.    But  there  is  no  suggestion  of  the  kind  in  this  story. 

43 


44    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  absurdity  of  this  derivation  of  the  story  must  be 
patent  to  every  reader  who  gives  real  thought  to  the 
matter.  Whether  the  story  of  the  shepherds  be  true  or 
untrue,  the  connexion  of  both  Cyrus  and  Krishna  with 
shepherds  is  wholly  different  from  that  of  these  Jewish 
shepherds  with  Jesus.  Cyrus,  for  instance,  is  carried  off 
by  one,  in  infancy,  to  be  exposed,  with  a  view  to  his  de- 
struction (Herod.,  I,  107-110);  Krishna  was  exchanged 
by  his  father  for  a  shepherd's  son,  shortly  after  his  birth, 
in  order  that  he  might  escape  the  destructive  wrath  of 
Kansa  {Vishnu  Pur  ana,  Wilson's  translation,  p.  502.  Cf. 
also  the  story  in  the  Bhagavata  Pur  ana). 

In  the  Lucan  narrative  the  Bethlehemite  shepherds 
merely  visit  the  stable  of  the  inn  to  see  the  young  child 
and,  perhaps,  to  attest  the  fact  of  his  birth.  There  is 
here  absolutely  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  narrative — 
whether  historical  or  not — is  borrowed  either  from  In- 
dian or  Persian  sources,  as  Mr.  Robertson  dogmatically 
asserts.  As  for  the  fact  that  shepherds  are  concerned 
in  all  three  (or  even  four)  stories,  in  ancient  civilisations 
of  the  pastoral  type  it  is  only  probable  that  they  would 
be  involved  in  many  events  connected  with  the  lives 
and  acts  of  the  more  important  individuals  of  their  re- 
spective countries.1 

The  Presentation  in  the  Temple 

This  ceremony  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Jewish  law  (Num.  18  :  15  and  16).  It  is,  however, 
recorded  chiefly  on  account  of  the  public  recognition  at 
the  time  of  the  infant  Jesus  as  the  future  Messiah  by 
Simeon  the  Levite  and  Anna  a  prophetess. 

But  two  Buddhist  stories  are  told  which  are  often  sup- 
posed to  be  parallels  and  sources  of  the  canonical  ac- 
count of  the  blessing  of  Simeon,  which  was  given  on  this 
occasion. 

^he  Talmud,  Sanh.  3,  disallows  the  evidence  of  shepherds. 


THE  PRESENTATION  IN  THE  TEMPLE  45 

On  the  day  of  Gautama's  birth  a  venerable  ascetic 
named  Asita,1  who,  after  eating  his  midday  meal,  had 
gone  to  heaven  to  rest  during  the  heat  of  the  day,  saw 
the  heavenly  hosts  rejoicing,  and  learning  the  cause  he 
immediately  hastened  down  to  earth  to  see  the  new- 
born and  future  Buddha.  When  the  old  man  came  into 
his  presence,  Maya  tried  to  make  the  child  salute  him, 
but  the  latter  insisted  on  presenting  his  feet  instead  of 
his  head  to  the  saint.  The  old  ascetic  then  took  the  in- 
fant up  in  his  arms,  and  when  Suddhodana  urged  that 
the  sage  must  be  reverenced,  the  latter  replied:  "Say 
not  so,  O  king;  on  the  contrary,  both  I  and  the  gods 
and  men  should  rather  reverence  him."  He  then  exam- 
ined the  body  of  the  child  to  see  whether  the  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty-eight  marks  of  a  supreme  Buddha  were 
upon  him.  Then  follows  what  has  been  termed  a  "bless- 
ing" of  Gautama  by  the  old  saint,  who,  we  are  told, 

"Began  to  weep  like  a  broken  water- vessel  and  cried: 
'By  grief  and  regret  I  am  completely  overpowered, 
Not  to  meet  him  when  he  shall  have  attained  to  supreme 
wisdom!'" 

This  is  all  very  different  from  the  narrative  describing 
Simeon's  blessing  (Luke  2  :  25),  though  it  may  be  a 
faint  echo  of  that  story,  modified  to  suit  a  different  set 
of  tastes  and  circumstances.  On  the  fifth  day  the  cere- 
mony of  naming  the  child  took  place. 

Later  on,  during  his  boyhood,  another  kind  of  presenta- 
tion in  a  temple  occurred,  which  is  still  more  unlike  that 
described  in  the  Lucan  narrative.  On  this  occasion  one 
hundred  thousand  gods  harnessed  themselves  to  the  car 
which  conveyed  the  boy  thither;  blossoms  were  showered 
down  upon  him  by  heavenly  nymphs;  the  earth  shook  as 

1  In  the  Niddna  Kathd  he  is  called  Kala  Devala.  The  story  will  be  found 
in  Beal's  The  Romantic  Legend  of  Sakhya  Buddha,  a  translation  of  the  Fo- 
fen-hing,  which  is  a  Chinese  version  of  the  Abhinishkrdmana  Sutra. 


46    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

he  entered  the  temple;  music  was  heard,  played  by  invisi- 
ble performers  in  heaven;  the  images  in  the  temple  de- 
scended from  their  pedestals  and  came  and  prostrated 
themselves  before  him.  Finally,  the  scene  was  con- 
cluded by  a  hymn  of  praise  sung  by  the  gods.  Kuenen 
remarks  upon  the  story  {National  and  Universal  Re- 
ligions, Hibb.  Lects.,  1882,  p.  326):  "The  simple  scene 
in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  is  really  no  parallel  at  all  to  the 
homage  rendered  to  the  Buddha-child." 

The  story  of  the  prophetess  Anna  (Luke  2  :  36-38) 
Seydel  derives  from  the  account  of  the  old  women  who 
came  to  wish  Gautama  good  luck,  an  impossible  derivation. 
(See  The  Romantic  Legend  of  Sakhya  Buddha.) 

Neither  does  it  seem  to  be  possible  to  extract  a  myth- 
ical meaning  from  these  narratives. 

The  Magi 

Probably  none  of  the  stories  told  of  the  childhood  of 
Jesus  have  given  rise  to  more  interest  and  speculation 
than  this  one.  The  visit  to  Bethlehem  of  the  "Wise 
Men  from  the  East"  (Mdyoi  curb  avaroXcov),  who  came  to 
"worship"  {irpo(JKvvr]Gai)  the  new-born  "King  of  the 
Jews,"  is  unique  even  among  the  most  touching  and 
vivid  of  the  Biblical  narratives.  Who  were  they?  what 
were  they  ?  from  whence  did  they  come  ?  what  was  their 
star?1  is  the  story  in  any  sense  historical?  These  are 
the  questions  which  have  exercised  the  minds  of  men 
for  generations. 

Strauss — writing  from  the  older  mythical  standpoint 
— has  dealt  at  some  length,  and  in  an  unsatisfactory 
manner,  with  the  story  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,  IV,  pp.  213- 
231.  His  conclusion,  wholly  predetermined  by  the  nat- 
ural bias  of  his  mind,  practically  amounts  to  this:  The 
prediction  of  Balaam  (Num.  24  :  17)  "was  not  the  rea- 

1  There  was  an  interesting  correspondence  on  this  subject  in  TJie  English 
Mechanic,  March  17,  1893. 


THE  MAGI  47 

son  why  the  Magi  took  a  star  for  that  of  the  Messiah, 
and  went  to  Jerusalem."  .  .  .  "But  it  was  the  cause 
why  the  legend  supposed  a  star  would  appear  at  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  which  should  be  recognised  by  the  astrologers 
as  that  of  the  Messiah." 

There  are  several  assumptions  here,  which  we  will 
notice  later.  Meanwhile,  we  will  turn  to  a  more  modern 
statement  of  the  mythical  view,  as  expressed  by  Pro- 
fessor Drews  at  some  length  in  The  Christ  Myth  (pp.  93 
and  94). 

Hadad-Adonis,  he  observes,  is  the  god  of  vegetation 
and  fruitfulness,  and,  like  the  sun,  dies  in  winter  and  is 
born  anew  in  the  spring.  "  Something  of  the  kind,"  he 
rather  vaguely  adds,  "may  well  have  passed  before  the 
mind  of  Isaiah  when  he  foretold  the  future  glory  of  the 
people  of  God,  under  the  image  of  a  new  birth  of  the  sun 
from  out  of  the  blackness  of  night"  (Isaiah  60  :  1  ff.). 

"As  is  well  known,  later  generations  were  continually 
setting  out  this  idea  in  a  still  more  exuberant  form. 
The  imagination  of  the  enslaved  and  impoverished  Jews 
feasted  upon  the  thought  that  the  nations  and  their 
princes  would  do  homage  to  the  Messiah  with  gifts, 
while  uncounted  treasures  poured  into  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  (cf.  Psalm  68  :  32  /.).  This  is  the  foundation 
of  the  story  of  the  Magi,  who  lay  their  treasures  at  the 
feet  of  the  new-born  Christ  and  his  virgin  mother. 

"But  that  we  have  here,  in  reality,  to  do  with  the 
new  birth  of  the  sun  at  the  time  of  the  winter  solstice 
appears  from  the  connexion  between  the  Magi,  or  Kings, 
and  the  stars.  For  these  Magi  are  nothing  else  than  the 
three  stars  in  the  sword-belt  of  Orion,1  which  at  the  win- 
ter solstice  are  opposed  in  the  west  to  the  constellations 

1  J.  e.,  Alnitak  (Arab.,  nitak  al-djanza,  "  the  girdle  of  the  giant"),  Alnilam 
(Arab.,  al-nizham,  "  a  string  of  pearls  "),  and  Mintaka  ("  a  girdle  ";  Arab,  and 
Pers.,  natak,  "to  gird").  The  Persians  seem  to  have  identified  Orion  with 
Nimrod,  the  "  mighty  hunter  before  Jahveh"  (Gen.  10  :  9).  See  Gore's  As- 
tron.  Essays,  p.  83. 


48    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

of  the  Virgin  in  the  east;1  stars  which,  according  to  the 
Persian  ideas,  at  this  time  seek  the  son  of  the  Queen  of 
Heaven — that  is,  the  lately  rejuvenated  sun  Mithras."2 

The  former  of  these  theories,  as  the  reader  will  see, 
reduces  the  figures  of  the  Magi  to  a  mere  poetic  fiction 
suggested  by  ancient  prophecies;  in  the  latter  the  Magi 
become  merely  the  three  central  stars  in  the  constella- 
tion Orion. 

The  theory  of  Strauss  must  again  be  pronounced  emi- 
nently unsatisfactory.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  a 
wholly  untrue  story  of  a  recognition  by  certain  (to  the 
legalistic  Jewish  Christians)  heathen  astrologers  would 
be  attached  to  a  Messianic  birth-story  of  Palestinian 
origin.3  It  would  be  utterly  foreign  to  their  conceptions 
derived  from  Old  Testament  predictions,  and  distaste- 
ful to  all  their  preconceived  ideas.  Balaam's  prophecy 
might  be  accepted  as  an  inspiration  of  Jahveh;  but  Ba- 
laam's magical,  as  also  his  astrological,  practises  were 
repugnant  to  the  early  Christian  mind  (cf.  Acts  19  :  19). 
There  is  no  probability  whatever  in  this  suggestion. 

Neither  is  it  possible  to  see  any  connexion  between 
these  Magi  and  the  stars  in  the  belt  of  Orion.  Even  if 
we  admit  the  (unproved)  tradition  that  they  were  kings 
— a  most  unlikely  supposition — we  are  nowhere  told 
authoritatively  that  there  were  three  in  number;4  this 
was  merely  inferred  later  on  from  the  fact  that  three 
gifts  were  offered,  and  it  was  supposed  that  each  Magus 
contributed  one.5 

1  The  constellation  of  the  Virgin  is  always,  at  all  times  of  the  year,  "  op- 
posed" to  the  belt  stars,  *.  e.,  when  she  is  rising  they  are  setting. 

2  Dupuis,  Uorigine  de  tous  les  cultes,  etc.  (1795),  p.  268. 
'"Matthew"  compiles  from  that  standpoint. 

4  Named  respectively  Gaspar,  Melchior,  and  Balthasar.  This  legend  is 
very  late  and  quite  worthless.  It  is  probably  derived  from  a  misuse  of 
Psalm  72  :  10-15  and  Isaiah  60  :  6. 

6  M.  Jean  Reveille  thinks  (£tudes  publiees  en  hommage  d  lafaculle  de  thiolo- 
gie  de  Montauban,  1901,  pp.  339  Jf.)  that  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  was  sug- 
gested by  the  Mithraic  legend.    But  he  admits  that  he  has  no  proof  of  this. 


THE  MAGI  49 

Herodotus  (I,  101)  refers  to  the  Magi  as  a  Median 
" tribe"  (?  caste),  and  in  VII,  19,  he  calls  them  " sooth- 
sayers." Plato,  again,  speaks  of  the  magianism  of  Zoro- 
aster (Alk.,  1).  The  "Magi  of  Chaldea"  are  mentioned 
in  Daniel  1  :  20;  7  :  n,  etc.  (cf.  the  Simon  Magus  of 
Acts  8:9).  Of  the  earlier  Fathers,  some  trace  their 
origin  to  Persia,  others  regard  them  as  coming  from 
Arabia. 

Professor  Clemen  says  (Primitive  Christianity  and  Its 
Non-Jewish  Sources,  pp.  298  /.)  that  the  narrative  of  the 
visit  of  these  wise  men  "is  beset  by  so  many  difficulties1 
that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  historical."  In  spite  of 
this  judgment  from  a  not  unfriendly  critic,  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  valid  objection  to  the  existence  of  a  con- 
siderable substratum  of  truth  in  the  narrative.2 

This  is  the  view  taken  by  Doctor  Voigt,  of  Halle  (Die 
Geschichte  Jesu  und  die  Astrologie,  191 2),  who  thinks 
that  our  existing  narrative  is  based  upon  an  earlier  and 
unpopularised  version  embodying  historic  facts.  His 
reason  for  this  conclusion  will  appear  when  we  examine 
the  problem  of  the  star. 

Cumont  comments  upon  this  view,  which  is  also  held  by  Dieterich  (The 
Mysteries  of  Mithra,  p.  195,  note) :  "But  I  must  remark  that  the  Mazdaean 
beliefs  regarding  the  entrance  of  Mithra  into  the  world  have  strangely 
varied." 

1  Referring  to  the  exhaustive  discussion  in  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  I,  pp. 

231/- 

2  An  historical  derivation  of  the  story  from  the  recorded  visit  of  Tiridates, 

King  of  Parthia  (A.  D.  66),  to  do  homage  to  Nero  as  Mithra,  is  favoured  by 
some  scholars.  Pliny  (Nat.  Hist.,  XXX,  16)  even  calls  Tiridates  a  magus, 
and  states  that  magos  secum  adduxerat,  from  whom  the  emperor  hoped  to 
learn  magic.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  Christian  story  was  in  circulation 
before  that  date;  and  Gruppe  (Mythologie,  1620),  Cheyne  (Bible  Problems, 
pp.  246  /.),  Jeremias  (Babylonisches,  p.  55),  Fiebig  (Babel,  pp.  16  /.),  and 
Nestle  ("Zu.  Matt.  2,"  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Neutest.  Wiss.,  1907,  p.  73)  for  various 
reasons  reject  this  explanation.  It  is  not  wholly  improbable  that  Tiridates 
was  inspired  by  the  previous  examples  of  Magi  hailing  monarchs  and  others 
born  under  favourable  conditions. 


50    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  Star 

This  celestial  phenomenon,  which  is  stated  by  Mat- 
thew to  have  synchronised  with  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and 
to  have  been  the  cause  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  Bethle- 
hem, has  been  the  subject  of  much  conjecture.  It  has 
been  variously  regarded  as  a  comet — a  highly  improb- 
able suggestion — a  stella  nova}  and  an  astronomical  con- 
junction of  planets. 

A  remarkable  instance  of  the  second  of  these  phe- 
nomena occurred  in  1572-3,  when  a  new  star  suddenly 
flamed  out  in  the  constellation  Cassiopeia,  surpassing  in 
brilliancy  the  planet  Jupiter.  Theodore  Beza  interpreted 
it  as  heralding  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 

Again,  on  September  30,  1604,  there  occurred  a  triple 
conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  and  (subsequently) 
Mars,  which  was  accompanied  by  a  new  star  appearing 
in  the  constellation  Pisces.1  Kepler  then  suggested  that 
the  natal  star  of  Bethlehem  might  be  a  mere  conjunc- 
tion of  planets,  and  calculated  that  a  similar  association 
of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  had  occurred  in  7  B.  C.  He  fur- 
ther surmised  that  it  might  have  been  accompanied  by 
a  stella  nova,  which  was,  perhaps,  the  star  seen  by  the 
Magi.  This  view,  however,  is  open  to  various  objections 
— amongst  others,  from  the  calculations  made  by  the  late 
Doctor  Pritchard,  of  Oxford,  it  would  seem  that  when 
the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  were  in  conjunction  in 
B.  C.  7  they  were  separated  by  a  space  equal  to  about 
twice  the  apparent  diameter  of  the  moon.  Moreover, 
there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  any  such  temporary 
star  was  seen  anywhere  in  that  year. 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  indeed,  that  the  solution 
of  this  problem  must  be  sought  in  astrology  rather  than 
in   astronomy.     This  is   the   opinion   of   Doctor  Voigt, 

1  See  Kepler's  Judicium  de  trigono  igneo,  dedicated  to  the  Emperor  Ru- 
dolph II  (1603),  and  his  Stella  nova  in  pede  Serpentarii  (1606). 


THE  STAR  51 

quoted  above.  He  holds  that  the  former  "science"  had 
specially  connected  Jupiter  with  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
and  that  his  ascendency  in  Aries,  in  the  spring  of  B.  C.  6, 
was  held  to  be  of  good  augury  for  Jewish  welfare.  The 
Magi,  he  thinks,  would  reason  thus:  A  king  is  born  in 
Judaea;  his  destiny,  according  to  the  heavens,  indicates 
beneficence  and  world-wide  dominion. 

But  the  date  of  this  phenomenon  may  prove  to  be  a 
difficulty,  unless  we  may  suppose  that  the  visit  was  paid 
when  Jesus  was  somewhat  older  than  Matthew  appears 
to  contemplate  in  his  Gospel.1 

Another  objection  yet  remains.  The  statement  that 
the  star  was  seen  in  the  east  (iv  ry  avaToXrj)  by  the  Magi, 
who  nevertheless  went  westward,  preceded,  it  would 
seem,  by  the  star,  seems  to  be  irreconcilable  with  all 
known  astronomical  phenomena.  This  question,  a  short 
time  ago,  attracted  the  attention  of  Mrs.  A.  S.  Lewis, 
the  discoverer  of  the  Syriac  palimpsest  of  the  Gospels  at 
Mount  Sinai,  when  she  found  that  it  was  quite  possible  to 
read  the  passage  otherwise  than  it  is  usually  translated. 
We  may,  she  thinks,  render  the  Greek:  "We  [being]  in 
the  East  have  seen  his  star,"2  etc. 

To  the  obvious  reply  that  this  rendering  is  a  some- 
what strained  one,  the  answer  would  be  that  the  con- 
struction here,  as  frequently  in  popular  language,  is  loose 
when  judged  by  a  purely  literary  standard.  But  the 
New  Testament  Greek,  as  we  now  know,  represents  the 
ordinary  popular  and  non-literary  language  of  the  time. 

Lastly,  the  statement  that  the  "star"  went  with  them 
and  "stood  over  the  place  where  the  young  child  was"  is 
due,  no  doubt,  to  the  popularising  of  the  original  story — 

1 7.  e.,  assuming  that  the  birth  took  place  in  B.  C.  8,  as  now  seems  prob- 
able.   See  Appendix  A  (i). 

2  ~Eti.dop.ev  ykp  airov  rhv  dtrripa  [dvres]  iv  rrj  dvaroX^.  It  may  be  also 
noted  that  if  by  the  "star"  a  constellation  were  meant,  Harpov  (iarpa) 
would  probably  have  been  used  instead  of  ao-T^p,  which,  strictly  speaking, 
means  a  single  star. 


52    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

unless  we  may  take  the  whole  matter  as  a  purely  sub- 
jective phenomenon.  It  is,  in  fact,  discounted  at  the 
outset  by  the  narrative  itself,  which  states  that  the 
Magi,  when  they  reached  Jerusalem,  were  at  a  loss  how 
to  proceed  farther,  until  they  were  directed  by  the 
priests  and  scribes  to  go  to  Bethlehem.  Thus  the  main 
difficulties  connected  with  the  "star"  disappear  when 
the  narrative  is  more  carefully  examined  in  the  light  of 
modern  knowledge. 

The  Gifts 

It  is  a  common  practise  amongst  some  modern  critics 
to  lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  had  long 
been  expected  by  the  Jews  to  offer  gifts  to  the  Messiah 
when  he  appeared,  though  the  idea  certainly  seems  to 
have  been  that  they  would  not  do  so  until  they  had  been 
conquered  by  him.  Isaiah  says  (9:6),  "They  shall 
bring  gold  and  frankincense, "  but  myrrh  is  not  men- 
tioned. Again,  Fiebig  and  Jeremias  suppose  that  these 
gifts  were  offered  to  Jesus  as  the  new-born  sun-god. 
Matthew's  list  of  presents,  however,  differs  consider- 
ably from  those  usually  presented  to  that  deity.  Ac- 
cording to  Kircher,  ambergris  and  honey  were  also 
included.  Further,  the  rebirth  of  the  sun-god  could 
hardly  be  thought  of  as  announced  by  a  star.  It  would 
surely  be  heralded  by  the  appearance  of  the  sun  him- 
self, either  immediately  after  the  winter  solstice  or  at 
the  vernal  point  of  the  ecliptic. 

The  gifts  here  mentioned,  we  must  also  remember, 
merely  symbolise  the  acceptance  of  Jesus  by  the  "wise 
men"  as  the  future  King  of  the  East,  where  divinity 
and  priestly  office  are  almost  inseparably  connected  with 
the  monarch.1 

1  It  is  also  stated  in  our  English  versions  that  the  Magi  "  worshipped  him." 
But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  we  should  translate  wpoaKtivrjaap  (Matt.  2  : 
11)  in  this  way.    It  may  mean  merely  "did  obeisance  to,"  more  Orientali, 


THE  FLIGHT  INTO  EGYPT  53 

This  incident  has  been  " paralleled"  with  a  Buddhist 
story  (The  Romantic  Legend  of  Sakhya  Buddha,  S.  Beal, 
pp.  65  and  66),  from  which  some  would  derive  it,  and  which 
bears  a  slight  general  resemblance  to  the  Biblical  event. 
Presents  are  likewise  brought  to  the  young  Bodhisat. 
KJng  Suddhodana  and  five  hundred  Sakhyas  brought 
"  bracelets  for  the  arms  and  wrists,  for  the  legs  and 
ankles,  necklets  composed  of  every  species  of  precious 
stones,  and  cinctures,  turbans,  and  coronels.,,  While 
these  were  being  put  upon  him  five  hundred  Brahmans 
"began  in  endless  laudatory  phrases  to  congratulate  the 
prince";  but  the  glory  of  the  prince's  body  eclipsed  the 
glory  of  the  gems,  so  that  their  brightness  was  not  seen — 
"they  all  appeared  dark  and  black,  even  as  a  drop  of 
ink,  utterly  lustreless." 

But  of  a  star,  by  which  all  these  men  were  urged  to  go 
and  pay  their  respects,  there  is  no  mention,  though  Sey- 
del  (Das  Evangelium  von  Jesu,  etc.,  1882,  pp.  135  and  298), 
and  Francke  (Deutsche  Lit-Zeitung,  1901,  27,  65),  have 
made  great  efforts  to  find  one. 

The  Flight  into  Egypt 

Professor  Drews  remarks  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  94) 
that  Hadad,  besides  his  association  with  Adonis  as  a  god 
of  vegetation,  "is  also  the  name  of  the  sun-god,  and  the 
Hadad  of  the  Old  Testament  returns  to  his  original  home 
out  of  Egypt,  whither  he  had  fled  from  David.  Thus," 
he  continues,  "we  can  understand  how  Hosea  n  :  1,  'I 
called  my  son  out  of  Egypt,'  could  be  referred  to  the  Mes- 
siah, and  how  the  story  that  Jesus  passed  his  early  youth 
in  Egypt  could  be  derived  from  it  (Matt.  2  :  14/.)." 

Professor  Drews's  meaning  in  the  above-quoted  pas- 

and  not  that  the  Magi  recognised  the  divinity  of  Jesus.  The  probability  is 
that  they  foresaw  in  him  a  future  great  king,  having,  like  Cyrus  (?),  a  mon- 
otheistic faith,  and  nothing  more. 

For  a  recent  study  of  Iranism  and  Magism,  see  Professor  J.  H.  Moulton's 
Hibb.  Lects.  on  Early  Zoroastrianism  (1912). 


54    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

sage  is  not  very  clear.  But,  if  we  rightly  understand 
him,  he  desires  to  mythicise  both  the  story  of  Jesus  in 
Egypt  and  the  story  of  Ader,  or  Hadad,  found  in  Jose- 
phus,  Ant.,  VIII,  6.1 

Hadad  the  Edomite,  we  gather,  was  saved  from  a  mas- 
sacre of  the  Edomites  by  David,  and  fled  (or  was  taken 
as  a  child)  to  Egypt.  When  he  heard  that  David  was 
dead,  and  Solomon  was  in  a  position  of  some  difficulty, 
he  returned  to  Edom,  but  was  unable  to  persuade  that 
nation  to  revolt.  He  then  went  to  Syria,  where  he  joined 
a  certain  Rezon,  the  captain  of  a  band  of  robbers,  and 
contrived  to  be  made  king  of  a  part  of  Syria,  from  whence 
he  invaded  Israel  and  did  much  damage  to  Solomon's 
kingdom. 

Now  Hadad,  the  Syrian  god,  is  a  form  of  Tammuz,  a 
vegetative  (-solar)  deity,  and,  if  this  story  be  a  myth,  it 
would  seem  that  the  passage  in  Hosea  is  referred  by 
Doctor  Drews  both  to  this  particular  variant  form  of  the 
sun-myth  and  to  the  story  of  Jesus,  which,  according 
to  this  view,  is  merely  another  version  of  it.  But  the 
narrative  in  the  book  of  Kings  professes  to  be  history, 
and  undoubtedly  is  such  in  its  nature,  whatever  confu- 
sion, or  variations,  may  have  been  introduced  into  it  be- 
fore it  was  recorded  in  the  Bible.  Further,  we  do  not 
believe  that  the  passage  in  Hosea,  referred  to  above,  has 
any  mythical  significance  whatever,  or  that  the  story  of 
Jesus'  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  suggested  by  it.2  The  refer- 
ence is  plainly  to  the  stay  of  the  people  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 
who  are,  according  to  the  prophetical  writers,  frequently 
termed  "my  son"  by  Jahveh. 

1  See  also  I  Kings  n  :  14-25.  This  story  has  been  carefully  examined  by 
Doctor  Winckler  (Alttest.  Unters.,  pp.  1-15),  who  thinks  that  it  is  made 
up  of  two  ancient  and  independent  narratives. 

2 "  Matthew,"  it  must  be  granted,  introduces  the  reference  in  a  forced 
and  unnatural  manner.  Usener  derives  the  idea  of  the  journey  to  Egypt 
from  the  flight  of  the  gods  before  Typhon  (Zeitschr.  f.  d.  N.  T.  Wiss.,  1903, 
p.  21). 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  THE  CHILDREN  55 

Again,  a  wide-spread  tradition  exists  among  the  Jews 
that  Jesus  lived  for  some  time  in  Egypt,  though  not 
during  the  period  of  his  infancy,  as  stated  by  Matthew. 
It  was  from  that  country,  say  both  the  Talmud1  and  the 
Toledoth  Jeschu,  that  he  brought  the  magic  by  means 
of  which  he  wrought  his  mighty  works.  It  would  seem 
probable,  therefore,  that  there  is  some  historical  basis 
for  the  story  of  a  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and,  if  the  narrative 
of  the  visit  of  the  Magi  and  the  subsequent  massacre 
of  the  infants  of  Bethlehem  be  facts,  we  have  the  motif 
for  the  journey  to  Egypt,  where  many  Jews  were  set- 
tled, as  well  as  for  the  occurrence  of  this  incident  during 
the  childhood  of  Jesus,  as  Matthew  states. 

The  Massacre  of  the  Children 

Strauss  says  of  this  story  {Life  of  Jesus,  IV,  pp.  234- 
236):  "The  primitive  Christian  legend  was  interested 
in  making  Herod  commit  this  crime  in  order  to  take  away 
the  life  of  Jesus;  for  in  all  times,  according  to  tradition, 
the  birth  of  great  men  has  been  celebrated  by  murders 
and  persecution.  The  more  danger  they  ran,  the  greater 
they  were  esteemed,  the  more  unexpectedly  they  were 
preserved,  the  more  importance  seemed  to  be  attached 
to  their  persons  by  heaven. 

"We  find  this  exemplified  in  the  account  of  the  in- 
fancy of  Cyrus  by  Herodotus,  in  that  of  Romulus  by 
Livy,  and,  more  recently,  in  the  account  of  the  infancy 
of  Augustus  by  Suetonius.  The  Hebrew  legend  gives 
a  similar  account  of  Moses;  and  it  is  somewhat  singular 
that  this  recital  concerning  Moses  is  very  similar  to  that 
given  by  the  evangelists  respecting  Jesus.  In  both 
cases  the  sentence  of  death  was  not  passed  against  the 
individuals  themselves,  but  against  a  certain  class  of 
children,  in  which  it  was  thought  they  would  be  included. 

1  See  Tract.  Shdbbath,  13d,  104,  6. 


56    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Thus,  in  Moses'  case,  it  was  against  all  the  male  chil- 
dren; in  Jesus'  case  it  was  against  all1  children  of  a  cer- 
tain age.  In  fact,  according  to  Exodus,  the  decree  of 
death  was  not  against  Moses,  for  Pharaoh  did  not  then 
suspect  his  birth,  and  he  was  only  accidentally  put  in 
danger;  but  the  tradition,  which  was  formed  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Hebrew  people,  did  not  think  the  intention  suffi- 
ciently strong;  and  in  consequence,  about  the  time  of 
the  historian  Josephus,  a  turn  was  given  to  it  which 
made  it  much  more  like  the  traditions  about  Cyrus  and 
Augustus,  and  consequently  more  like  the  recital  of 
Matthew."  This  last-named  version  is  a  variant  of  no 
authority  whatever,  as  Strauss  practically  admits. 

A  similar  rabbinical  story  is  related  of  Abraham  and  the 
Chaldean  Nimrod.  "The  Chaldean  sages,"  says  Strauss, 
"whose  attention  was  awakened  by  a  remarkable  star, 
announced  to  the  Babylonian  prince  that  a  son  would 
be  born  to  Terah,  from  whom  would  spring  a  powerful 
people;  and  upon  this  declaration  Nimrod  declared  a 
massacre  from  which  Abraham  luckily  escaped." 

This  is,  no  doubt,  a  case  of  astrological  prediction  so 
common  in  ancient,  and  even  modern,  history  down  to 
quite  recent  times.  It  differs  from  the  Biblical  story, 
however,  in  at  least  one  very  important  particular:  the 
Magi  did  not  predict  that  a  child  would  be,  but  believed 
that  he  had  been,  born. 

Professor  Drews,  on  the  other  hand,  affiliates  the  story 
of  the  massacre  with  a  somewhat  similar  incident  in  the 
life  of  Krishna.2    Like  Herod  and  Astyages,  King  Kansa, 

1  Strauss  seems  in  error  here.  The  MSS.  read  iravTa.%  rots  iraidas,  all  the 
male  children.  If  both  sexes  had  been  meant,  t£kvo.,  no  doubt,  would  have 
been  used. 

2  See  the  story  in  the  later  works,  the  Bhagavata  Parana  and  the  Prem 
Sdgar.  In  the  Buddhist  variant  of  this  anecdote,  King  Bimbasara  refuses 
to  kill  the  youth  Gautama,  when  he  is  pointed  out  as  a  likely  rival  in  the 
future,  and  does  not  massacre  any  children  (see  The  Romantic  Legend  of 
Sdkhya  Buddha,  pp.  103  and  104). 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  THE  CHILDREN  57 

in  order  to  prevent  any  danger  arising  in  the  future  to 
himself,  or  his  successor,  from  his  sister's  son,  against 
whom  he  had  been  warned  by  an  oracle,  cast  both  Va- 
sudeva  and  Devaki  into  prison.  After  the  former  had 
escaped  with  the  new-born  babe,  and  returned  with  the 
child  of  Nanda  the  shepherd,  Kansa  himself  came  to 
take  the  infant  away.  And  when  the  child  had  disap- 
peared before  his  eyes,  he  gave  orders  that  all  the  new- 
born children  in  his  country,  under  the  age  of  two  years, 
should  be  slain. 

Doctor  Cheyne  (Bib.  Probs.,  p.  249)  regards  the  story  as 
an  analogue  of  Ex.  1:22;  cf.  Ezek.  29  :  30;  but  the  stories 
are  obviously  different. 

The  critiques  of  both  Strauss  and  Drews  are  founded 
upon  the  alleged  fact  that  in  Eastern  countries  the  births 
of  all  great  men  are  traditionally  celebrated  by  murders 
and  persecution.  This  is  to  some  extent  true,  not  only 
in  tradition,  but  in  actual  history.  In  barbarous  civili- 
sations, where  highly  placed  men  and  their  prospective 
successors  are  the  centres  of  intrigue  and  plot,  it  is  only 
what  we  might  naturally  expect  to  find.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  the  fact  is  not  so  universal,  even  in  tradition  and 
legend,  as  Strauss  supposes.  The  examples  which  are 
picked  out  by  him  from  Jewish,  Persian,  and  Roman 
history,  after  all,  form  but  a  very  small  number  in  com- 
parison with  the  numerous  names  which  could  be  men- 
tioned concerning  whom  no  tradition,  or  legend,  of  an 
attempted  murder  exists.  This  line  of  argument,  in- 
deed, leads  to  no  conclusion  and  proves  nothing. 

Neither,  again,  does  the  story  of  Rajah  Kansa  and 
the  young  Krishna  prove  anything  more  than  either  a 
mere  coincidence  or,  more  probably,  one  of  those  nu- 
merous borrowings  from  Christianity  with  which  the  later 
versions  of  the  story  of  Krishna,  found  in  such  works  as 
the  Bhdgavata  Purdna,  abound.  The  true  tests  for  the 
historical  truth,  or  probability,  of  stories  such  as  this 


58    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

are  first  of  all  the  corroboration  which  they  find  else- 
where in  contemporary  literature,  and,  secondly,  the  like- 
lihood of  the  situation  to  produce  such  a  crisis.  Let  us 
examine  this  narrative  from  both  of  these  points  of 
view. 

It  so  happens  that  in  the  case  of  the  Biblical  story 
there  is  some  external  evidence  of  an  historical  character 
which  tells  in  its  favour.  The  reference  alluded  to  here 
is  a  passage  found  in  the  works  of  Macrobius,  a  heathen 
writer  of  considerable  repute  and  a  learned  collector  of 
the  curiosities  of  ancient  literature,  who  flourished  at 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century  A.  D.  It  runs  as  follows: 
"When  Augustus  [Caesar]  had  heard,"  he  says,  "that 
among  the  children  in  Syria,  whom  Herod  the  King  of 
the  Jews  had  ordered  to  be  slain,  within  the  age  of  two 
years,  his  own  son  also  had  been  killed,  he  said:  'It  is  bet- 
ter to  be  Herod's  hog  [w]  than  his  son  [w].'"  1 

Various  objections  have  been  raised  against  this  testi- 
mony: e.  g.,  that  the  original  reporter  of  the  story  must 
have  mistaken  the  reference;  that  it  was  much  more 
likely  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  execution,  at  the 
order  of  Herod,  of  his  two  sons  Alexander  and  Aristobu- 
lus;   or,  again,  that  it  refers  to  the  murder  of  Antipater 

1"Cum  audisset  Augustus  inter  pueros,  quos  in  Syria  Herodes,  rex 
Judaeorum,  intra  bimatum  jussit  interfeci,  filium  quoque  ejus  occisum,  ait: 
'Melius  est  Herodis  porcum  esse  quam  filium'"  (Saturnalia,  II,  4). 

It  should  be  noted  that  Augustus  is  reported  by  Macrobius  as  having  ut- 
tered this  bon  mot  in  Latin.  But  it  was  a  common  custom,  in  the  reign  of  this 
emperor,  and  subsequently,  for  the  upper  and  more  cultured  classes  in  Rome 
to  speak  in  Greek;  and,  as  will  be  seen,  the  pun  is  only  appreciable  in  that 
language,  where  the  pronunciation  of  t>v  (hun)  and  vlbv  (wheon)  are  suffi- 
ciently alike  to  warrant  a  fairly  good  royal  jest.  The  note  of  Gronovius, 
that  this  seems  to  be  an  imitation  of  an  old  saying  of  Diogenes  the  Cynic 
against  the  Megarians,  as  caring  more  for  the  breeding  of  their  rams  than 
for  their  children,  does  not  explain  it. 

But  the  jest  in  the  mouth  of  a  Roman,  and  the  reference  to  the  absti- 
nence from  pork,  which  Herod  (though  not  a  Jew)  was  practically  obliged 
to  practise,  out  of  compliment  to  the  scruples  of  his  fanatical  subjects, 
has  in  it  a  sarcasm  which  is  wholly  wanting  in  the  remark  as  attributed  to 
Diogenes. 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  THE  CHILDREN  59 

two  years  later;  or,  once  more,  that  it  is  improbable 
that  Herod  had  an  infant  son  at  that  time. 

To  the  first  of  these  objections  we  may  reply  that  there 
is  no  reason  whatever  to  suspect  any  misunderstand- 
ing; the  report,  whether  true  or  untrue,  is  clear  and  defi- 
nite. As  regards  its  application  to  others  of  Herod's 
sons,  the  distinct  reference  to  a  massacre  of  a  number  of 
children  under  the  age  of  two  years  negatives  this  ex- 
planation. 

Again,  as  Herod  was  at  that  time  sixty-seven  years  of 
age,  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  had,  by  a  young  wife  of 
his  harem,  an  infant  who  was  (perhaps  unknown  to  him) 
out  at  nurse  in  Bethlehem.1 

A  final  objection,  that  Josephus  ignores  the  incident, 
is  an  argument  of  very  trifling  value.  No  historian  no- 
tices everything  that  happens,  and  the  fact  of  a  dozen, 
or  even  a  score,  of  small  children  being  done  to  death, 
by  the  orders  of  a  cruel  and  arbitrary  despot,  was  not  a 
matter  of  sufficient  importance  to  attract  much  notice 
at  that  time  from  the  outside  world.  Josephus  had 
abundance  of  matter  for  his  records,  all  of  much  greater 
interest  to  the  Roman  people  than  the  sufferings  of  a  few 
peasant  children  in  an  insignificant  village  of  Judaea. 

Lastly,  as  to  the  probability  of  such  an  occurrence, 
the  records  of  Herod's  life  supply  abundant  justification. 
A  man  who  could  deliberately  order  two  of  his  sons  to 
be  strangled,  on  mere  suspicion,  and  a  third  son  after- 
wards to  be  put  to  death,  whilst  he  himself  was  upon  his 
death-bed;  who,  when  summoned  by  Antony  to  Rhodes, 
left  his  best-loved  wife  Mariamme  in  charge  of  one  of 
his  friends,  with  orders  that  she  should  at  once  be  put  to 
death,  should  any  misfortune  befall  him,  and  actually 
himself  executed  her  on  his  return;  who,  moreover,  on 
his  accession  massacred  all  the  members  of  the  Sanhe- 

1  It  is  still  more  improbable  that  Macrobius  borrowed  the  story  from 
"Matthew"  and  invented  the  jest. 


60    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

drin  but  two,  and  caused  the  young  Aristobulus,  brother 
of  Mariamme,  whom  he  had  appointed  high  priest,  to  be 
treacherously  drowned,  and,  doubtless,  was  guilty  also  of 
numerous  other  unrecorded  crimes:  such  a  man,  we  un- 
hesitatingly affirm,  was  capable  of  anything. 

That  a  man  of  this  type,  if  he  had  heard  even  the 
faintest  breath  of  rumour  that  the  Messiah-King  of  the 
Jews  was  lately  born,  would  scruple  for  one  moment  to 
sacrifice  a  few  obscure  infants  in  order  to  make  sure  of 
the  death  of  a  future  rival  to  himself,  or  his  dynasty,  is 
wholly  incredible.  Herod,  we  may  be  sure,  would  not 
have  hesitated  to  sacrifice,  if  need  be,  a  thousand  such 
children  in  order  to  insure  his  own  stability  or  that  of 
his  house  upon  the  throne  of  Judaea. 

A  suggested  mythical  explanation  of  the  narrative — 
that  it  is  "simply  a  detail  in  the  universal  sun-myth  of 
the  attempted  slaying  of  the  child  sun-god,  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  stars  at  morning  suggesting  a  massacre, 
from  which  the  sun-child  escapes"  {Christianity  and 
Mythology,  pp.  322  and  323)  is  too  fanciful  to  merit  any 
serious  notice.  A  really  clever  person  can  find  ana- 
logues in  the  sun-myth  to  almost  anything  and  every- 
thing that  happens  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth.  But 
this  fact  has  no  necessary  bearing  upon  the  historicity 
or  non-historicity  of  the  event  in  question.1 

The  Discourse  with  the  Doctors  of  the  Law 

This  incident  has  been  correlated  with  a  story  of  the 
young  Bodhisat,  who,  it  is  said,  at  the  age  of  eight  years, 
was  sent  to  the  "Hall  of  Learning"  to  be  instructed  by 
the  erudite  Visvamitra.     The  child  so  astonished   the 

1  An  important  point,  but  one  upon  which  too  much  stress  is  often  laid 
by  negative  critics,  is  that  "  Matthew,"  in  describing  the  return  of  the  Holy 
Family  from  Egypt,  appears  to  be  ignorant  of  any  previous  residence  in 
Galilee.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  because  "Matthew,"  in  general, 
records  the  Galilean  tradition.  It  is,  however,  probably  due  to  defective 
sources  of  information. 


A  "PARALLEL"  FROM  DELPHI  61 

pundit  with  his  command  of  all  the  learning  then  known 
to  India  that  the  latter  chanted  this  song: 

"Whatever  arts  there  are  in  the  world, 
Whatever  Sutras  and  Sasters, 
This  (child)  is  thoroughly  acquainted  with  all 
And  is  able  to  teach  them  to  others."1 
— The  Romantic  Legend  of  Sakhya  Buddha,  pp.  67  and  68. 

A  "Parallel"  from  Delphi 

Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  on  the  other  hand  {Christianity 
and  Mythology,  p.  334),  can  find  no  better  "parallel"  to 
the  story  of  Luke  than  the  following  anecdote.  Strabo, 
he  says,  narrates  how  certain  "parents  went  to  Delphi, 
anxious  to  learn  whether  the  child  which  had  been  ex- 
posed [to  perish]  was  still  living,  while  the  child  itself 
had  gone  to  the  temple  of  Apollo  in  the  hope  of  discov- 
ering its  parents." 

It  is  only  necessary  to  add,  in  reference  to  both  of 
these  stories,  that,  if  the  unbiassed  reader  will  study 
carefully  Luke's  narrative  and  compare  it  with  them, 
he  will  see  that  neither  bears  the  slightest  resemblance 
to  it  nor  shows  the  remotest  connexion.  That  children, 
afterwards  famous  in  history,  have  frequently  been  re- 
ported as  displaying  precocity  at  an  early  period  of  their 
lives  is  quite  true.    But  there  all  resemblance  ends. 

According  to  the  rabbi  Judah  ben-Tema,  every  Jewish 
boy  at  five  years  of  age  studied  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
at  ten  years  the  Mishna,  at  thirteen  the  Gemara,  the 
two  last  forming  the  Talmud.  Josephus,  too,  tells  us 
{Life,  II),  that  his  own  progress  in  learning  was  so  great 
that  at  the  age  of  fourteen  years  he  was  often  consulted 
by  the  chief  priests,  and  various  other  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  state,  upon  difficult  points  of  the  law. 

1  Cf.  with  this  Luke  2  :  46  and  47,  and  the  ridiculous  account  in  the  Gos~ 
Pel  of  the  Infancy,  where  the  boy  discourses  upon  "  physics  and  metaphysics, 
hyperphysics  and  hypophysics." 


62    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

With  examples  like  these  before  us  we  cannot  wonder 
at  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  which  the  young  Jesus 
showed  at  the  age  of  twelve  years;  the  more  so  that 
Luke  frankly  tells  us  that  even  he  "  increased  in  wisdom 
as  in  age,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  man." 


CHAPTER  IV 

JESUS.     CHRIST.     PRE-CHRISTIAN  CHRIST  AND  JESUS-CULTS 

Jesus 

The  name  "Jesus"  (T770-OU?)  is  used  both  in  the  LXX 
version  and  in  the  N.  T.  as  the  equivalent  of  the  Heb. 
Jehoshua  (5?BfirP)  or  Joshua  (original  form  Hoshea  Jtafin, 
"help,"  Num.  13  :  8),  which  is  commonly  interpreted  as 
meaning  "Jah  (or  Jahveh)  is  help,"  or  "salvation"  (cf. 
Matt.  1  I2I).1 

1  Similarly,  Philo  Judaeus  (born  20-10  B.  C.)  explains  Joshua  (Jesus)  as 
'It7<to0s  epixeveteTcu  ffurrjpla  Kvplov:  "Jesus  (Joshua)  is  interpreted  safety 
of  the  Lord." 

Doctor  Cheyne,  however,  appears  to  reject  this  view  (see  Hibbert  Journal, 
April,  191 1,  pp.  658  and  659).  After  admitting  that  "the  direct  evidence  for 
the  divine  name  Joshua  in  pre-Christian  times  is  both  scanty  and  disputa- 
ble," and  adding  that  "if  the  belief  in  such  a  god-man  was  taken  over  by 
the  Christists,  we  are  entitled  to  presume  that  they  did  not  leave  behind  the 
celestial  name  of  the  god-man.  And  that  name  ought  to  underlie  the  pop- 
ular form  Jehoshua,  whence  the  late  form  Jeshua  or  Jeshu  has  come";  he 
then  goes  on  to  urge  that  this  is  the  case;  that  the  ritual  lamentations  in 
the  valley  of  Megiddon  were  for  Hadad-Rimmon,  the  only  or  first-born  son 
of  the  Supreme  God,  i.  e.,  Adonis,  and  that  this  name  was  a  compound  of 
the  names  of  two  related  deities  (see  Zech.  12  :  10  and  11),  referring  for  de- 
tails to  his  The  Two  Religions  of  Israel,  pp.  183  and  213.  See  also  Crit.  Bib., 
p.  191. 

He  also  finds  a  parallel  to  this  duplication  of  names  in  Jahu-Ishma,  where 
Jahu  is  an  alternative  form  for  Jahveh  and  Ishma  (  =  Shema)  is  short  for 
Ishmael.  "The  origin  of  the  latter  name,"  he  contends,  "is  as  uncertain  as 
that  of  Yah  we,  but  at  any  rate  it  is  a  god-name  (Two  Religions,  pp.  65  and 
400),  and  does  not  mean  'God  hears'  any  more  than  Joshua  means  '  YahwS- 
help.'"  Finally,  "it  appears  that  Jeshua,  or  Jeshu,  is  a  corruption  of  the 
second  part  of  the  cultural  divine  name  Jehu-Ishma[el]." 

But,  if  the  whole  matter  is  so  uncertain,  and  the  evidence  is  so  "scanty 
and  disputable,"  how  does  Doctor  Cheyne  know  all  this?  Here  philology 
alone  is  an  uncertain  basis  for  both  theological  and  historical  theories,  and 
few  reputable  scholars  appear  to  have  indorsed  Doctor  Cheyne's  conclu- 
sions. 

Moreover,  it  is  a  mere  surmise  that  the  compound  word  "Hadad-Rim- 

63 


64    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Professor  Drews  seems  to  accept  this  explanation, 
for  he  says  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p. 
*95):  "  Joshua,  however,  means  something  like  'Jahveh 
is  salvation/  'Jah-Help/  and  corresponds  to  the  German 
name  'Gotthilf.'" 

But  he  directly  afterwards  launches  out  into  a  num- 
ber of  highly  disputable  and  often  erroneous  statements 
as  to  the  connexion  of  its  Hellenistic  Greek  substitute 
(" Jesus")  with  those  of  various  mythical,  or  semi- 
mythical,  personages  in  heathen  cults.  Thus:  "The 
name  [Jesus]  was  fairly  common  among  the  Jews,  and 
in  this  connection  it  is  equivalent  among  the  Hellenistic 
Jews  to  the  name  Jason,  or  Jasios,  which  again  is  merely 
a  Greek  version  of  Jesus  (cf.  II  Mace.  4)."  He  then 
goes  on  to  say  that  Jaso  (from  iasthai,  "to  heal")  was 
the  name  of  the  daughter  of  the  saver  and  physician 
Asclepios,  who  "himself  was  in  many  places  worshipped 
under  the  name  of  Jason  in  a  widely  spread  cult." 
Furthermore,  this  Jason  was  practically  identical  with 
Jasios  (  =  Jasius  =  Janus  Quirinus,  Verg.,  Mn.,  Ill,  168). 
The  whole  argument,  in  short,  is  clearly  directed  to 
proving  that  Jesus  and  Jason  (with  its  assumed  variant 
forms)  were  practically  one  and  the  same  pre-Christian 
cultual  god  who  was  worshipped  as  the  "  healer ,!  and 
"helper"  of  mankind. 

mon"  is  the  name  of  a  deity.  Because  both  Hadad  and  Tammuz  (Adonis) 
were  worshipped  in  the  Phoenician  city  of  Byblus,  it  has  been  conjectured 
that  the  two  deities  may  have  been  amalgamated,  or  confused,  so  that  there 
was  a  wailing  for  a  Hadad-Rimmon  similar  to  that  for  Tammuz.  But  no 
evidence  for  this  has  so  far  been  adduced.  See  Baudissin,  in  Real-Enc.  /. 
Prot.  Th.  u.  Kir.  (Herzog),  VII  (1889),  s.  v. 

The  whole  of  Doctor  Cheyne's  theory,  indeed,— like  that  of  Professor 
Drews — is  ultimately  based  upon  the  assumption  that  Joshua  is  a  purely 
mythical  character,  and  not  a  tribal  hero,  whose  exploits  and  share  in  the 
conquest  of  Canaan  have  been,  perhaps,  magnified  by  the  patriotism  of 
later  historians  and  chroniclers.  But  Doctor  Cheyne  at  least  allows  (p. 
658)  that  it  is  "still  possible  that  [in  New  Testament  times]  there  was  a  great 
teacher  and  healer  bearing  the  same  name  who  was  confounded  with  that 
supposed  deity"! 


JESUS  65 

But  there  appears  to  be  a  great  deal  of  both  reckless 
assertion  and  groundless  assumption  here.  In  the  first 
place,  as  regards  the  identification  of  Jesus  and  Jason, 
the  prosaic  facts  are  these.  Soon  after  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander Jannaeus  (d.  78  B.  C.)  Greek  names  began  to  be 
fashionable  among  the  Jews,  especially  throughout  the  up- 
per classes.  Thus,  a  high  priest  of  the  period  changed  his 
name  'I^o-oO?  (JftBh,  Jeshua)  to  'Idaow  (Jason),  just  as  a 
certain  'Icwa/Ao?  (D*j?J,  Jakim)  called  himself  'AA/a/zo?  (Al- 
cimus),  and  StXas  (Silas)  was  transformed  into  ^lXovclvos 
(Silvanus). 

From  that  time  onward  Jason  became  a  common 
name  amongst  the  Jews.  The  brother  of  the  above- 
mentioned  Jason,  'CWa?  pTOln,  Honias)  also  bestowed 
upon  himself  the  Greek  name  Me^e'Xao?  (Menelaus)  [see 
Noldeke,  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Names,"  sec.  86]. 

This  practise  was  no  doubt  partly  suggested  by  the 
rough  equivalency  of  healer  (in  a  physical  sense)  and 
helper  (in,  perhaps,  both  a  spiritual  and  a  temporal 
sense);  but  there  was  no  identification  of  a  Gentile  cult- 
god  Jason  with  a  Jewish  cult-god  Jesus;  it  was  simply 
a  Grecising  fashion  which  had  sprung  up  subsequently 
to  the  spread  of  Greek  power  and  influence  in  the  East, 
owing  to  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great. 

Again,  the  assumed  identification  of  Jason  with  Jasios 
(Jasius),  or  Jasion,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  highly  im- 
probable. It  is  more  likely  a  case  of  confusion  of  differ- 
ent myths.  We  have  not  space  here  for  entering  into  the 
question  in  detail,  and  can  only  add  that  Jasios,  or 
Jasion,  appears  to  have  been  connected  with  the  mys- 
teries of  Demeter,  and  the  name  is  usually  derived  from 
Idofiac,  "to  heal";  but  the  etymology  is  doubtful.  Jason, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  the  hero  of  the  Medea  myth,  a 
wholly  different  story,  it  would  seem.1 

1  Doctor  Cheyne,  who  is,  on  the  whole,  kindly  disposed  to  the  mythical 
theory,  makes  the  following  admission  (Hibbert  Journal,  April,  191 1,  p.  658) 


66    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Once  more:  the  equating  of  any  of  the  above  names 
with  the  Roman  Janus  is  more  than  problematical. 
The  Romans  themselves  thought  that  Janus  and  the 
feminine  Jana  (  =  Diana)  were  the  sun  and  moon,  and 
commonly  assimilated  the  former  to  the  Greek  ZtjV,  i.  e., 
Altjv.  And  the  Janiculum  (hill  of  Janus),  which  was 
probably  the  original  seat  of  this  worship  in  Rome,  lay 
on  the  north,  or  Etruscan,  side  of  the  Tiber,  so  that  an 
Etruscan  origin  of  the  cult  is  suggested.  And  as  the  sun, 
by  its  revival  after  the  winter  solstice,  starts  the  year, 
so  Janus  is  the  god  of  opening  and  beginning;  hence 
January  (in  later  times)  the  month  of  opening  or  begin- 
ning of  the  year.     But  Janus  was  no  "  healer  "-god. 

We  next  come  to  a  passage  (The  Witnesses  to  the  His- 
toricity of  Jesus,  p.  197,  note)  containing  still  wilder 
speculations  and  more  reckless  assertion,  which,  to  do 
him  justice,  we  must  first  quote  almost  verbatim:  "Jes 
Crishna  was  the  name  of  the  ninth1  incarnation  of 
Jesnu,  or  Vishnu,  whose  animal  is  the  fish,  as  in  the  case 
o"f  Joshua,  the  son  of  the  fish  Nun.  .  .  .  Jes  is  a  title  of 
the  sun.  .  .  .  The  word  also  occurs  in  the  name  of  Osiris 
Jes-iris,  or  Hes-iris  (according  to  Hellenicus)  [and]  in 
Hesus  (the  name  of  a  Celtic  god).  .  .  .  The  mother  of 
all  these  gods  whose  name  contains  Jes  is  a  virgin  (Maya, 
Mariamma,  Maritala,  Mariam,  etc.);  her  symbol  is  the 
cross,  the  fish,  or  the  lamb;  her  feast  is  the  Huli  (Jul), 
from  which  Caesar  took  the  name  Julus  or  Julius  when  he 
was  deified  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Ammon;   and  her 

regarding  the  theory  that  Joshua  means  "Saviour";  that  he  was  probably 
an  Ephraimite  form  of  the  sun-god;  that  his  name  conveys  the  idea  of 
healer  (so  Epiphanius),  and  that  it  is  connected  with  Jason,  or  Jasios,  the 
mythical  name  of  a  pupil  of  Cheiron  in  the  art  of  healing:  "I  am  sorry  to 
say  that  almost  every  word  of  this  is  contrary  to  the  present  decisions  of 
scholarship." 

1  Krishna  was  the  eighth  avatar  of  Vishnu.  The  ninth  was  the  Buddha, 
"the  great  sceptical  philosopher,"  to  delude  the  Daityas  into  neglecting 
the  worship  of  the  gods. 


JESUS  67 

history  agrees  with  that  of  Jesus  Christ."  !  We  will  now 
deal  with  this  extraordinary  tissue  of  assertions  as  fully 
as  our  limits  of  space  will  allow. 

The  question  of  the  " virginity"  of  the  various  mother- 
goddesses,  and  their  connexion  with  the  Mary  of  the 
Gospels,  has  been  discussed  in  the  first  and  second  chap- 
ters of  this  work,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.  And 
in  the  first  place  let  us  inquire  into  the  use  of  the  name 
Jes,  in  the  designation  "Jes  Crishna,"  leaving  the  addi- 
tion "Crishna"  to  be  dealt  with  later  on  in  the  present 
chapter. 

In  its  fuller  form  "Jes"  is  written  " Jeseus"  (" Jezeus") 
or  "Yeseus."  Concerning  this  appellation  the  late  Pro- 
fessor Max  Miiller  writes  (Trans,  of  the  Vict.  Inst.,  vol. 
XXI,  p.  179):  "The  name  Yeseus  [Jezeus]  was  invented, 
I  believe,  by  Jacolliot,2  and  is  a  mere  corruption  of  Yadu. 
I  answered  Jacolliot  once;3  but  these  books  hardly  de- 
serve notice." 

On  the  other  hand,  such  eminent  Sanscritists  as  the 
late  Sir  Monier  Williams,  of  Oxford,  and  the  late  Pro- 
fessor Cowell,  of  Cambridge,  while  holding  to  the  spu- 
riousness  of  "Jes"  and  "Jeseus"  as  ancient  names  of 
Krishna,  think  that  these  appellations  may  be  corrup- 
tions of  Isa  ("ruler,"  "chief"),  which  properly  be- 
longs as  a  title  to  Siva  as  regent  of  the  northeastern 
quarter. 

The  conclusion  of  the  matter,  in  either  case,  is  that 
the  prefixing  of  the  name  Jeseus,  or  Jes,  to  Krishna  has 
absolutely  no  warrant  from  any  ancient  Hindu  book  or 
custom. 

1  Referring  here  especially  to  The  Worship  of  Augustus  Casar,  by  Alex- 
ander del  Mar  (New  York,  1900).  Cf.  this  passage  with  one  in  Ecce  Deus, 
W.  B.  Smith,  p.  17,  where  the  argument  is  similar.  Drews  appears  to  ac- 
cept Del  Mar's  statements  unreservedly. 

2  In  his  La  Bible  dans  VInde. 

J  Cf.  his  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Religion  (1884),  pp.  24  and  25.  Also 
his  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop  (1895),  vol.  IV,  pp.  228  ff. 


68    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

In  a  similar  manner  there  is  no  ancient  authority  for 
the  form  "Jes-nu"  as  a  variant  of  Vishnu.1 

We  will  next  turn  to  the  attempt  to  foist  the  spurious 
word  "  Jes,"  as  a  divine  appellation,  into  the  name  of  the 
Egyptian  deity  Osiris.  "The  name  of  Osiris, "  says  Pro- 
fessor Flinders  Petrie,2  "is  written  with  the  jd,  'the 
throne/  AS,  or,  perhaps,  in  early  times  IS.  The  vocali- 
sation of  signs  varied  much,  and  on  Greek  authority  we 
know  that  it  was  sounded  in  later  times  as  OS."3    Ac- 

x  Vishnu's  connexion  with  the  fish  appears  only  in  the  later  Indian  account 
of  the  deluge  found  in  the  Bhdgavata  Pur  ana,  where  the  fish  is  represented 
as  an  incarnation  of  this  god.  His  object  in  becoming  a  fish  seems  to  have 
been  to  steer  the  ship.  In  the  earlier  account  found  in  the  Satapatha  Brdh- 
mana  (I,  8,  i,  i),  the  fish  was  an  incarnation  of  Brahma. 

It  may  be  also  added  here  that  there  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of 
NUn,  as  the  name  of  the  father  of  Joshua.  It  may  mean  a  serpent,  and  have, 
perhaps,  a  totemic  signification.  Again,  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  is  a  con- 
traction (and  corruption)  of  an  Edomite  name  (see  Enc.  Bib.,  s.  v.). 

2  Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  present  writer. 

8  According  to  Del  Mar  (The  Worship  of  Augustus  Ccesar,  pp.  88  and  89), 
the  word  "Ies-iris"  signified  "son  of  God"  !  And  he  adds:  "Ies-iris  (from 
Hellenicus)  is  probably  correct,"  adducing  as  evidence  Plutarch,  On  Isis 
and  Osiris,  34.  But  Plutarch  there  merely  says  that  "Hellenicus  [fifth  cen- 
tury B.  C]  has  recorded  that  he  heard  Osiris  called  Ysiris  ("T<ripis)  by  the 
priests,"  which  simply  indicates  a  vocalisation  of  the  first  sign  as  US  (  =  OS), 
not  the  use  cf  the  title  of  a  cult-god,  "Jes" ! 

With  regard  to  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  the  name  Osiris,  Doctor 
Budge  says  (The  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  vol.  II,  pp.  113  and  114) :  "The  oldest 
and  simplest  form  of  the  name  [Osiris]  is  -d,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  written  by 
means  of  two  hieroglyphics,  the  upper  of  which  represents  a  'throne'  and 
the  lower  an  'eye,'  but  the  exact  meaning  attached  to  the  combination  of 
the  two  pictures  by  those  who  first  used  them  to  express  the  name  of  the 
god,  and  the  signification  of  the  name  in  the  minds  of  those  who  invented 
it,  cannot  be  said.  In  the  late  dynastic  period  the  first  syllable  of  the  name 
appears  to  have  been  pronounced  A  US,  or  US,  and  by  punning  it  was  made 
to  have  the  meaning  of  the  word  USR,  'strength,'  'might,'  'power/  and 
the  like,  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  Egyptians  at  that  time  supposed 
the  name  of  the  god  to  mean  something  like  the  'Strength  of  the  Eye,'  i.  e.t 
the  strength  of  the  sun-god  Ra.  This  meaning  may  very  well  have  suited 
their  conception  of  the  god  Osiris,  but  it  cannot  be  accepted  as  the  correct 
signification  of  the  name.  For  similar  reasons  the  suggestion  that  the  name 
AS-AR  is  connected  with  the  Egyptian  word  for  'prince,'  or  'chief  (ser) 
cannot  be  entertained.  It  is  probable  that  the  second  hieroglyphic  in  the 
name  AS-AR  is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  great  Eye  of  Heaven, 


JESUS  69 

cordingly,  we  see  that  the  first  syllable  of  this  compound 
word  (whether  written  AS  or  IS,  or  later  US  OS)  is  not 
a  divine  name  prefixed  to  the  main  part  of  the  name,  but 
the  vocalisation  of  a  sign  denoting  a  throne,  and  its  precise 
meaning  here  is  unknown. 

Next,  according  to  Professor  Drews,  we  meet  with  the 
cultual  divine  name,  or  title,  "  Jes"  in  "Hesus,"  the  name 
of  a  Celtic  god.  Now,  Hesus,  or  Esus,  has  very  gener- 
ally been  thought  to  be  radically  the  same  word  as  the 
Aisa1  (Afcra)  of  the  Greeks,  and  was  the  type  of  an  abso- 
lutely Supreme  Being  whose  symbol  on  earth  was  the  oak. 

M.  Salamon  Reinach,  however,  avers  (Orpheus,  pp.  116 
and  117,  an  English  translation)  that  "We  find  a  divine 
woodman  named  Esus  associated  with  the  Roman  gods 
Jupiter  and  Vulcan.  This  Esus,"  he  continues,  "is  men- 
tioned by  Lucan  (circ.  A.  D.  60),  together  with  Teutates 
and  Taranis;  according  to  the  poet  they  are  sanguinary 
deities  who  exact  human  sacrifices.  It  has  been  wrongly 
supposed  that  these  three  gods  constituted  a  sort  of  Cel- 
tic trinity;  in  reality,  as  the  passage  in  Lucan  proves, 
they  were  deities  venerated  by  a  few  tribes  to  the  north 
of  the  Loire,  among  others  the  Parisii.  Esus  seems  to 
have  been  the  same  word  as  the  Latin  herus,2  and  per- 
haps the  Indo-Iranian  Asuras.  Teutates  was  the  god  of 
the  people,  Taranis  the  god  of  thunder.  The  reason  for 
representing  Esus  as  a  woodman  is  not  apparent." 

Whichever  of  the  above  explanations  we  may  adopt, 
or  even  if,  with  Professor  Anwyl,  we  regard  Esus  merely 
as  "the  eponymous  god  of  the  Esuvii"  (Celtic  Religion, 

i.  e.,  Ra,  but  the  connexion  of  the  first  is  not  so  clear,  and,  as  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  what  attributes  were  assigned  to  the  god  by  his  earliest 
worshippers,  the  difficulty  is  hardly  likely  to  be  cleared  up."  See  also  his 
Osiris  and  the  Egyptian  Resurrection,  vol.  I,  chap.  2.  Thus,  it  will  seem  that 
Egyptologists  lend  no  support  to  the  theories  of  Mr.  Del  Mar  and  Pro- 
fessor Drews. 

1  Af<ra,  i],  like  Moira  (Mo?/>a),  the  divinity  who  dispenses  to  every  one  his 
lot  or  destiny  (Lat.,  Parca;  e.  g.,  Horn.,  //.,  XX,  127. 

2  Or  erus  (of  the  gods),  "a  master." 


70    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

p.  33),  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  Esus  was  not  a  cult-god 
of  the  " saviour"  or  "healer"  type,  and  therefore  in  no 
sense  comparable  with  Jesus  as  regarded  in  that  light. 
Indeed,  the  only  connexion  is  due — as  in  some  other 
cases — to  the  accidental  resemblance  in  the  sound  and 
spelling  of  the  two  names. 

Equally  wild  is  the  statement  that  the  name  "Julius," 
as  borne  by  Augustus  Caesar,  is  derivable  from  "Huli," 
the  feast  of  "the  mother  of  all  those  gods."  Here,  again, 
the  actual  historical  fact  is  that  Augustus  took  the  name 
"Julius"  on  being  adopted  as  his  heir  by  Julius  Caesar, 
who  was  a  member  of  the  ancient  familia  of  the  Juli 
which  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  the  year  265  A.  U.  C, 
when  a  C.  Julius  Julus  was  consul.  What  Professor 
Drews  means  by  "her  [the  goddess-mother's]  history 
agrees  with  that  of  Jesus  Christ"  we  confess  ourselves 
unable  to  understand. 

Further,  it  would  appear  not  improbable  that  the  word 
Jes,  which  Professor  Drews  asserts  to  be  a  title  of  the 
sun,  is  really  a  derivative  from  the  ancient  Indo-Euro- 
pean, or  Aryan,  root  signifying  "to  be"  or  "exist,"  as 
applied  to  the  highest  deity  and  means  the  Existing  One.1 
If  so,  the  concept  would  seem  to  be  quite  different  from 
that  underlying  the  various  solar  and  vegetation  "sa- 
viour" cults. 

Finally,  Professor  Drews  sums  up  his  theory  as  follows 
{The  Christ  Myth,  p.  139):  "We  can  scarcely  doubt  that 
the  stories  in  question  originally  referred  to  the  annual 
journey  of  the  sun  through  the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac. 
Even  the  names  (Iasios,  Jason,  Joshua,  Jesus;  cf.  also 
Vishnu  Jesudu  .  .  .)  agree,  and  their  common  root  is 
contained  also  in  the  name  Jao  (Jahwe),  from  which 
Joshua  is  derived.     Jao,  or  Jehu,  however,  was  a  mys- 

1Cf.  Sans.,  as-mi;  Gr.,  el/xi  =  £<r-nl;  Lith.,  es-mi;  Lat.,1  sum  =  es-um; 
Slav.,  jes-mi;  Old  Bulg.,  yes-mi.  See  also  Curtius,  Gk.  Elym.,  564;  Max 
Miiller,  Oxford  Essays;  and  Peile,  Gk.  and  Lat.  Etym.,  p.  151. 


JESUS  71 

tical  name  of  Dionysus  among  the  Greeks,  and  he,  like 
Vishnu  Jesudu  (Krishna),  Joshua,  and  Jesus,  roamed 
about  in  his  capacity  of  travelling  physician  and  re- 
deemer of  the  world. " 

With  the  above  summary  we  may  compare  a  similar 
contribution  of  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  (Ecce  Deus,  p. 
17),  who  says:  "The  name  [Jesus1]  was  closely  connected 
in  form  with  the  divine  name  IAO,  regarded  in  early 
gnostic  circles  with  peculiar  reverence.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  decide  whether  this  latter  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  equivalent  of  the  tetragram  JHVH,  or  as  meaning 
Jah- Alpha-Omega  (Rev.  1:8;  21  :  6;  22  :  13;  cf.  Isaiah 
44  :  6).  It  is  enough  that  in  Hellenistic  early  theosophic 
circles  the  name  was  in  approved  use,  a  favourite  desig- 
nation of  deity.  In  view  of  all  these  facts  the  triumph 
of  the  name  Jesus  seems  entirely  natural." 

Whether  the  stories  of  Iasios  and  Jason  are  identical 
and  originally  referred  to  the  annual  journey  of  the  sun 
through  the  twelve2  signs  of  the  zodiac  need  not  be  dis- 
cussed here.  Neither  is  it  necessary  to  inquire  whether 
the  names  of  the  various  pagan  cult-gods  can  be  traced 
to  a  common  root.  This  is  affirmed,  but  not  demon- 
strated, by  Professor  Drews.  The  points  to  be  noted 
here  are  that  the  solar  character  of  both  Joshua  and 
Jesus,  and  the  etymological  identity  of  their  names  with 
those  of  these  cult-gods  have  not  been  established,  or 
even  shown  to  be  reasonably  probable.  In  the  same 
way,  the  facile  dogmatism  of  Professor  Drews — which 
is  wisely  avoided  by  Professor  Smith — that  Jao  is  iden- 
tical with  Jahveh,  a  word  of  very  uncertain  origin  and 
meaning,3   cannot   be   allowed   in   the  present   state   of 

1He  derives  it  from  the  Greek  'I&ofjuu,  "I  heal,"  which  in  its  Ionic  and 
epic  forms  has  the  future  'IiJ-o-o/acu,  and  its  noun  Irjffts  (gen.,  'Iijtr-ews). 

2  Del  Mar,  however,  states  (op.  cit.,  pp.  6  and  298)  that  originally  there 
were  first  only  eight  and  then  ten  signs  in  the  ancient  zodiac. 

3  See  art.  "Names,"  in  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  sees.  109-113,  with  notes 
appended. 


72    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

knowledge.  It  is  true  that  in  late  Greek  Jahveh  was 
variously  and  loosely  transliterated  'Ia/3e,  'lave,  'laove,  or 
'laovat,  and  that  some  Gnostics  apparently  used  Taa>  as 
an  equivalent  for  Jahveh.  Regarding  this  latter  prac- 
tise, however,  Doctor  Cheyne  writes  (Enc.  Bib.,  art. 
"Names,"  sec.  no,  note  4):  "The  form  Iao,  handed 
down  by  the  Gnostics,  may  be  left  out  of  account.  Like 
all  similar  forms  (e.  g.,  Tev&>  in  Philo  Byblius),  it  is  sim- 
ply the  product  of  erroneous  or  misunderstood  Jewish 
statements.  On  this  point  cf.  Baudissin,  'Der  Ursprung 
Gottesnamens  Iao/  in  his  Studien  zur  semit.  Rel.,  2,  181  jf. 

(1876)." 

Movers,  again,  remarks:  "The  forms  of  the  Hebrew 
sacred  name  ffirp  [JHVH],  in  heathen  writers  Teua>  (Philo, 
Sanch.,  p.  2)  and  Taco  (Diod.  Sic,  I,  94),  are  certainly  not 
derived  from  the  tetragrammaton  of  the  Hebrew,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  confusion  of  ffirp  with  Dionysus." 

In  the  preceding  paragraph  he  also  says:  "This  mys- 
terious triliteral,  however,  Taw  is  manifestly  ifP,  the 
apocopated  Hiphil  of  <"ttn\  'he  makes  to  live/  formed, 
as  so  many  names  in  Hebrew  are,  in  exact  correspond- 
ence with  the  tetragrammaton  mrp,  apoc.  ITT1,  and  with 
the  apocopated  forms  which  appear  in  the  names  ^K'"ife^, 
ty^lV,  etc."  (see  Phoniz.,  chap.  14,  pp.  539-558). 

Jao,  it  is  true,  was  a  mystical  name  of  Dionysus  among 
the  Greeks;  but,  as  that  god  had  probably  an  Oriental 
origin,  it  was  doubtless  merely  a  Greek  transliteration 
of  his  original  name,  which  was  not,  it  would  seem,  a 
form  of  Jahveh.  It  has  likewise  no  connexion,  etymo- 
logically  or  otherwise,  with  the  names  " Joshua"  or 
"Jesus." 

Neither  can  we  compare  the  roaming  about  of  Diony- 
sus as  depicted  in  the  various  forms  of  the  myth  with 
the  traditional  work  of  either  Joshua  or  Jesus.  If  the 
accounts  are  compared  the  differences  are  seen  to  be 
absolute.    Dionysus  was,  perhaps  in  one  sense,  a  form  of 


JESUS  73 

the  sun-god,  and  Jao  was,  it  may  be,  the  autumnal 
phase  of  that  deity;  that  either  Joshua  or  Jesus  were 
solar  deities  remains,  as  we  have  already  said,  to  be 
proved.  Their  stories — especially  that  of  the  former — 
in  their  minor  details  may  have  collected  a  few  mythical 
traits,  during  the  course  of  transmission,  but  the  his- 
torical bases  remain  unshaken, 

Professor  Smith's  alternative  suggestion  that  Jao  may 
represent  the  compound  name  Jah-Alpha-Omega  is  no 
doubt  ingenious  and  plausible,  but  it  rests  on  no  basis 
of  fact,  even  if  that  trigrammaton  were  (as  is  probable) 
"in  Hellenistic  early  theosophic  circles  a  favourite  desig- 
nation of  deity."  It  is  quite  as  likely,  if  not  more  so, 
that  such  interpretation,  if  current  in  the  earlier  Chris- 
tian centuries  (of  which,  however,  we  have  no  proof), 
sprang  from  the  special  use  of  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first 
and  last  letters  in  the  Greek  alphabet,  in  the  passage  of 
the  Apocalypse  to  which  Smith  refers. 

Before  closing  this  section  of  the  present  chapter,  we 
may  briefly  advert  to  the  peculiar  mythical  theory  of 
Professor  P.  Jensen,  according  to  whom  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels  is  really  neither  a  personified  ideal,  based  upon 
pre-Christian  Jewish  and  pagan  models  (Drews),  nor  an 
anthropomorphised  Jewish  cult-god  (Smith,  and  mainly 
Robertson),  but  a  reproduction,  or  reflection,  of  one  or 
more  of  the  heroes  whose  exploits  are  recorded  in  the 
ancient  Babylonian  Gilgamesh  epic.  He  is  to  be  identi- 
fied, Jensen  thinks,  now  with  Eabani,  the  man-monster 
of  the  story,  now  with  Xisuthros,  the  Babylonian  Noah, 
and  now  with  Gilgamesh  himself,  the  chief  hero  of  the 
epic,  and  the  King  of  Erech  (Uruk).1  In  his  Moses, 
Jesus,  Paulus  (pp.  28-31),  he  works  out  a  series  of  (in  the 
case  of  Jesus)  thirty  "parallels,"  or  "correspondences,"  in 

1  See  Jensen's  Das  Gilgamesch  epos  in  der  Weltliteratur  (1906);  Moses, 
Jesus,  Paulus:  drei  Varianten  des  babylonischen  goUmenscJten  Gilgamesch 
(1909);  Hat  der  Jesus  der  Evangelien  wirklich  gelebt?  (1910). 


74    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

which  he  thinks  the  Gospels  reproduce  the  chief  episodes 
of  the  original  myth.  Moses  and  Paul  have  a  similar  der- 
ivation. 

It  will  be  impossible  here  to  discuss  in  detail  this 
theory;  but  we  may  remark  briefly  that  it  is  a  priori 
open  to  at  least  two  very  grave,  and  indeed  insuperable, 
objections.  In  the  first  r31ace,  many  of  the  so-called 
parallels  are  very  forced  and  artificial.  As  instances  of 
this,  two  or  three  examples  must  suffice.  Sinful  human- 
ity and  most  beasts,  including  swine,  are  drowned  in  the 
great  deluge.  This  is  paralleled  by  the  drowning  of  the 
two  thousand  demons  and  swine  in  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
Again,  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  Peter  and  the 
two  other  disciples  wish  to  build  tabernacles.  The  origin 
of  this  episode  is  traced  to  Gilgamesh1  felling  some  trees 
before  his  voyage  to  Xisuthros,  the  Chaldean  Noah. 
Many  other  similar  extravagant  derivations  might  be 
quoted,  but  these  will  serve  our  present  purpose. 

Secondly,  the  theory  entirely  overlooks  the  numerous 
incidents  in  the  Gospels  to  which  there  are  no  corre- 
spondences in  the  epic.  Moreover,  the  highly  ethical 
and  spiritual  note  characteristic  of  the  former  is  entirely 
unaccounted  for  upon  this  hypothesis. 

The  theory  has  received  a  very  slight  support  upon 
the  Continent,  e.  g.,  from  Bruckner  (Christ.  Welt.,  1907,  p. 
202)  and  Beer  (Theol.  Jahresber.,  1906,  p.  14);  but  prac- 
tically none  outside  Germany.  The  majority  of  scholars 
have  regarded  it  as  fanciful,  and  it  has  even  been  de- 
scribed by  such  a  frank  and  outspoken  critic  as  Professor 
B.  W.  Bacon  (Hibbert  Journal,  July,  191 1,  p.  739)  as 
"elaborate  bosh."  At  all  events  it  cannot  be  regarded  as 
a  really  serious  contribution  to  the  mythical  hypothesis. 

1  For  Gilgamesh  as  a  form  of  Tammuz,  see  Babylonian  Liturgies,  by  S. 
Langdon,  p.  20,  Rev.  3,  and  Rev.  d'Assyriologie,  IX,  115,  col.  3  :  1. 


CHRIST  AND  KRISHNA  75 

Christ 

The  title  " Christ" — Greek,  X/moto'?,1  substantive  form 
of  %/ho-to?,  "anointed" — is  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew, 
rWD,  mdshiakh,  " Messiah,"  i.  e.,  "anointed"  (Aram., 
Js\T^p,  meshihd,  more  fully  meshiakh  Jahveh,  "Jahveh's 
anointed.") 

Christ  and  Krishna 

Following  the  example  of  a  number  of  modern  writers, 
Professor  Drews,  as  we  have  seen,  primarily  seeks  to 
identify  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  with  the  Krishna  of 
the  modern  Hindu  cult-worship.2  Thus,  he  speaks  of 
"the  Hindu  Krishna,  who,  as  saviour,  conqueror  of  drag- 
ons, and  crucified,  is  in  many  respects  as  like  Jesus  as 
one  egg  is  like  another"  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity 
of  Jesus,  p.  214).  As  these  "many  respects"  are  not 
detailed  here,  though  elsewhere  (op.  cit.,  p.  197),  fol- 
lowing Mr.  Del  Mar,  he  spells  the  name  of  the  Hindu  god 
"Crishna,"  we  are  driven  to  an  examination  of  the 
original  story  of  Krishna,  and  to  contrast  this  with  its 
subsequent  additions,  as  also  to  ascertain  the  origin  of 
the  variant  modern  spelling  by  which  it  is  superficially 
assimilated  to  the  characteristic  Messianic  title  of  Jesus. 

The  authentic  sources  for  the  legend  of  Krishna  are 
the  following  Sanscrit  works:  the  Mahabharata  (book 
V),  the  Bhdgavata  Pur  ana  (book  X),  the  Bhagavadgitd 
(book  X),  the  Harivamsa  (3304  ff.),  and  the  Vishnu 
Pur  ana  (book  V).  To  these,  for  the  more  highly  leg- 
endary and  modern  additions,  may  be  added  the  Prem 
Sdgar,  an  edition  in  the  vernacular  Hindi  of  that  part 
of  the  Bhdgavata  which  relates  to  the  life  of  Krishna. 
For  details  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  excellent  English 

1  The  attempt  of  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  (in  Der  Vorchristliche  Jesus, 
1906)  to  connect  xpi<tt^  with  x/37?0"7"^,  XP^0^1,  "to  use"  (see  Psalm 
34  :  5)  is  quite  untenable. 

2  He  admits  also  a  subsidiary  Buddhist  influence. 


76    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

translations  of  these  books  which  are  now  available.  It 
must  suffice  here  to  refer  to  a  few  main  incidents,  and 
to  say  that  we  learn  from  the  most  ancient  and  pre- 
Christian  authorities  that  the  mother  of  Krishna  was  not 
named  "Mariamma,"  1  but  Devaki;  that  she  was  not  a 
"  virgin,"  but  the  mother  of  eight  sons,  of  whom  Krishna 
was  the  last;  that  her  husband's  name  was  not  "Jama- 
dagni,"  a  village  carpenter,  but  Vasudeva,  a  descendant 
of  the  Lunar  line  of  kings,  and,  finally,  that  Krishna  was 
not  "  crucified,"  2  but  (according  to  even  the  Vishnu  Pu- 
rdnd)  was  shot  by  a  hunter  in  mistake  for  a  deer.  But 
this  by  the  way. 

Further,  the  legends  about  his  putative  father  being 
called  away  from  home  "to  pay  taxes,"3  his  "recogni- 
tion as  a  god  by  Magi,"  his  "last  supper  in  company 
with  ten  disciples,"  and  similar  stories,  are  all  pure  fic- 
tion and  undoubtedly  owe  their  origin  to  imitators  of  the 
Gospel  narratives. 

Now,  the  question  arises,  when  did  this  extraneous  mat- 
ter find  its  way  into  the  Krishna  legend  and  from  what 
sources  did  it  come? 

It  probably  began  at  an  early  period.  The  story  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  carried  into  India  at  the  latest  before 
the  end  of  the  second  century  A.  D.  (see  Euseb.,  H.  E., 
V,  10).  And,  according  to  Weber's  version  of  a  paragraph 
in  the  Mahdbhdrata,  it  was  also  brought  back  to  India  by 
Brahman  travellers.  Both  Weber  and  Lassen  interpret 
the  passage  in  question  to  mean  that  early  in  the  Chris- 
tian era  three  Brahmans  visited  a  community  of  Chris- 

1  This,  and  the  other  statements  immediately  following,  are  apparently 
taken  from  Del  Mar's  The  Worship  of  Augustus  Ccesar,  pp.  89-92. 

2  The  Hindu  sculptures  of  a  crucifixion  of  Krishna  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Higgins  (The  Hindoo  Pantheon)  are  unquestionably  either  representations 
of  Jesus  Christ,  executed  by  the  early  church  in  India,  or  later  Brahman- 
ical  imitations  based  upon  these. 

3  This  statement  is  apparently  derived  from  the  A.  V.  of  Luke's  Gospel 
(2  :  3),  where  d-rroypdcpea-dai  ("to  be  enrolled")  is  wrongly  translated  "to 
be  taxed." 


CHRIST  AND  KRISHNA  77 

tians  in  the  East,  and  that  on  their  return  "they  were 
able  to  introduce  improvements  [ !  ]  into  the  hereditary 
creed,  and  more  especially  to  make  the  worship  of  Krishna 
Vasudeva  the  most  prominent  feature  of  their  system." 

An  article  by  an  anonymous  Sanscritist  in  the  Athe- 
nceum  for  August  10,  1867,  may  also  be  consulted.  In 
this  the  writer  shows  how  the  Brahmans  took  from  the 
Gospels  such  things  as  suited  them  and  used  these  ex- 
tracts in  the  composition  of  Krishna  episodes  which  were 
interpolated  into  MSS.  of  the  Mahabhdrata. 

Another  source  of  interpolations  would  seem  to  be 
documents  of  an  apocryphal  character.  Doctor  L.  D. 
Barnett,  of  the  British  Museum,  says  {Hinduism,  1906, 
p.  21,  note):  "A  considerable  number  of  the  details  in 
the  Puranic  myths  of  Krishna's  birth  and  childhood 
seem  to  have  come  from  debased  Christian  sources 
(apocryphal  Gospels  and  the  like)  such  as  were  current 
in  the  Christian  church  of  Malabar." 

But  a  great  deal  of  interpolation  of  matter  derived 
from  the  Bible  into  Sanscrit  works  has  undoubtedly 
taken  place  since  the  British  occupation  of  India  and 
the  revival  of  Christian  missions  in  that  country.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  certain  Lieu- 
tenant Wilford,  of  the  East  India  Company's  service, 
was  anxious  to  ascertain  whether  many  prominent  Bib- 
lical characters  were  referred  to  in  the  Hindu  sacred 
books.  Accordingly,  he  offered  rewards  for  any  informa- 
tion which  would  show  this  to  be  the  case.  Some  time 
afterwards  many  pundits  came  forward  and  placed  in 
his  hands  copies  of  Sanscrit  MSS.  which  contained  such 
information  as  he  was  seeking.  This  discovery  at  the 
time  produced  great  enthusiasm  throughout  Europe,  and 
even  such  experts  as  Sir  William  Jones  were  induced  to 
accept  the  evidence  as  trustworthy. 

After  a  time,  however,  suspicions  were  aroused,  and 
a  critical  examination  showed  that  clever  forgeries  had 


78    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

been  committed  by  means  of  interpolations  of  Biblical 
episodes  written  in  Sanscrit  and  more  or  less  modified 
to  suit  the  change.  Lieutenant  Wilford  reluctantly  ac- 
knowledged that  he  had  been  imposed  upon;  but  his 
Essays  upon  the  subject  are  still  quoted  by  writers  who 
apparently  are  ignorant  of  the  fraud,  as  also  of  the  sub- 
sequent confession  of  Lieutenant  Wilford  that  he  had 
been  grossly  deceived  by  unscrupulous  pundits.1 

We  have  now  to  deal  with  the  question  of  the  variant 
spelling  of  Krishna  as  "Crishna,"  "Chrishna,"  or  "Crist- 
na7"  much  affected  by  some  writers,  especially  those  of  the 
mythical  school.  And  we  will  commence  our  inquiry  by 
quoting  a  distinguished  modern  scholar.  "There  is  no 
authority,"  writes  Doctor  Macdonell,2  the  Boden  Professor 
of  Sanscrit  at  Oxford,  "for  spelling  the  name  Krshna 
(or  Krishna)  l  Crishna/  much  less  'Cristna.'  The  in- 
itial [letter]  is  a  K,  and  nothing  else.  I  cannot  give 
you  references  on  this  question,  as  any  discussion  there 
may  be  on  it  (unknown  to  me)  cannot  have  any  value. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  fact  that  in  some  of  the  ver- 
nacular forms  of  the  word  Krishna  (both  as  an  adjec- 
tive meaning  'black'  and  as  the  name  of  a  river  on  the 
southeastern  coast)  a  tti  often  appears.  Thus,  in  Kan- 
arese  you  have  Krisna,  Krstna,  Kristna,  Krsta,  and 
Kitta,  for  the  Sanskrit  Krsna.  The  Anglo-Indian  form 
of  the  name  is  Kistna.  In  Kanarese  and  Malayalam, 
' Christian '  appears  in  the  form  of  Kristina,  c Christ'  as 
Kristi;  in  Tamil,  'Christ'  appears  as  Kiristi" 

Similarly,  Mr.  Blumhardt,  university  lecturer  on  the 
modern  Indian  dialects  at  Oxford,  writes:  "The  Ben- 
gall  always  pronounce  shn  as  sht,  with  a  nasalisation  of 
the  vowel.     So   Krsna  becomes  Kristan.     Next  V  is 

■  •  • 

dropped,  and  the  final  inherent  'a'  is  sounded  like  '6.' 

1  See  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  F.  Max  Muller,  vol.  IV,  pp.  210- 
213. 

2  In  a  letter  to  the  present  writer. 


CHRIST  AND  KRISHNA  79 

Thus  we  have  Kishton,  which  form  is  perhaps  more 
common  than  Krishton.  The  similarity  of  the  name  with 
Christ  is  purely  accidental."1 

From  the  above-quoted  expert  information  it  is  quite 
clear  that  all  theories  of  the  type  of  Mr.  Del  Mar's  (who 
appears  to  be  followed  blindly  by  Professor  Drews)  of 
a  pre-Christian  Hindu  cult-god  "Crishna,"  equatable 
with  " Christ"  (and  " Jesus"),  are  merely  unconfirmed 
guesses  with  no  basis  of  fact  underlying  them. 

Finally,  Krishna,  who  (as  Professor  Drews  declares)  in 
the  oldest  Indian  literature  (the  Vedas)  appears  to  be 
not  a  sun-god — i.  e.,  an  incarnation  of  Vishnu — but  a 
demon,  is,  only  after  the  Christian  era,  transformed  into 
a  divine  being  through  the  agency  of  such  comparatively 
late  works  as  the  Pur  anas.2  Hence  a  later  Christian 
origin  of  those  episodes  in  the  complete  Krishna  legend 
which  resemble  stories  found  in  the  Gospels  is  the  most 
feasible  explanation.3 

1  It  may  also  be  added  that  the  two  names  have  a  fundamentally  differ- 
ent signification:    Christ  =  "Anointed";    Krishna  =  "the  Black  one." 

2  See  Jacob's  Manual  of  Hindu  Pantheism,  "The  Vedantasara"  (1891), 
and  Weber  in  the  Indian  Antiquary,  II,  p.  285.  The  Vishnu  Pur  ana  dates 
from  about  the  ninth  or  tenth  century  A.  D.,  the  Bhagavata  Pur  ana  from 
about  the  thirteenth  century  A.  D. 

On  this  question  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  very  lamely  remarks  {Christianity 
and  Mythology,  p.  302):  "The  lateness  of  Puranic  stories  in  literary  form 
is  no  argument  against  their  antiquity.  Scholars  are  agreed  that  late  doc- 
uments often  preserve  extremely  old  mythic  material."  This  statement 
contains  a  germ  of  truth;  but  we  may  add  that  the  lateness  of  Gospel  stories 
in  literary  form  is  invariably  regarded  as  strong  evidence  against  their  an- 
tiquity— and  this  even  by  Christian  critics. 

3  Several  other  alleged  parallels  to  the  Jewish-Christian  idea  of  a  Messiah 
(Christ)  have  been  suggested:  e.  g.,  (1)  When  the  Babylonian  plague-god 
Dibbarra  attacks  the  city  Erech,  chaos  reigns  in  the  place  and  district  until 
after  a  time  the  Akkadian  will  come,  overthrow  all,  and  conquer  all  of 
them.  The  anointed  saviour  who  will  remedy  all  this  is  Hammurabi,  who 
will  open  up  a  golden  age  of  peace  and  prosperity  (Relig.  of  Bab.  and  Assyr., 
M.  Jastrow,  Jr.;  cf.  Mark  13  :  8-12,  and  Matt.  10  :  21).  (2)  A  Buddhist 
parallel  is  also  quoted  (see  Rhys  David's  Hibb.  Lects.,  1881,  p.  141;  cf.  also 
Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life,  p.  101,  and  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Messiah,"  sec. 
10). 


80    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Pre-Christian  Christ  and  Jesus  Cults 

"There  was  .  .  .  not  merely  a  pre-Christian  Christ, 
as  Gunkel  admits,  a  belief  in  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  in  Judaeo-syncretist  circles  [refer  to  Gunkel's 
Zum  Religions geschichtl.  Verstdndnis  des  Neuen  Test. 
(1903),  p.  82],  but  there  was  also  a  pre-Christian  Jesus, 
as  Jesus  and  Christ  were  only  two  different  names  for 
the  suffering  and  rising  servant  of  God,  the  root  of  David 
[Jesse]  in  Isaiah,  and  the  two  might  be  combined  when 
one  wished  to  express  the  high-priesthood  of  the  Mes- 
sianic character  of  Jesus.  Jesus  was  merely  the  general 
name  of  the  saviour  and  redeemer.  .  .  ."  Thus  writes 
Professor  Drews  in  his  more  recent  supplementary  work, 
The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus  (191 2),  p.  200. 

Now,  if  we  understand  Professor  Drews  aright,  there  are 
two,  or  rather  three,  propositions  laid  down  here,  all  of  a 
highly  disputable  character.  First,  it  seems  to  be  main- 
tained that  there  was  in  pre-Christian  times  an  esoteric 
Christ-cult,  of  Judaic  origin,  in  which  a  worship  of  (or  at 
least  a  belief  in)  a  divine  redeemer  was  the  chief  cult- 
doctrine;  secondly,  that  there  was  also  a  similar  and 
contemporaneous  Jesus-cult  (?)  of  Ephraimitic  origin — 
possibly  connected  with  an  old  tribal  and  solar  god; 
thirdly,  that  these  two  concepts  later  on  became  one  and 
the  same.1  Let  us  proceed  to  consider  this  thesis  with 
all  due  care  and  impartiality  and  see  upon  what  basis  it 
rests. 

1  Mr.  Robertson  {Christianity  and' Mythology,  pp.  326  ff.)  and  Professor 
Drews  (The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  79-82)  lay  great  stress  upon  an  alleged  pre- 
Christian  twofold  idea  of  a  Messiah  Ben  David  and  a  Messiah  Ben  Joseph, 
Drews  also  (loc.  cit.)  advancing  the  theory  that  our  Gospels  represent  "a 
reconciliation  and  fusion  of  the  two  concepts."  The  idea  of  an  unsuccess- 
ful Ephraimitic  Messiah  is  certainly  found  highly  developed  in  the  Talmud, 
but  even  its  existence  in  pre-Christian  times  is  problematical  (see  Enc.  Bib., 
art.  "Messiah,"  sec.  9). 


CHRIST-CULTS  81 


Christ-cults 


As  regards  the  pre-Christian  Christ,  the  whole  of  the 
valid  part  of  the  argument  in  its  favour  really  turns 
upon  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  two  particular  por- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures — Psalm  22  and 
Isaiah  53. x  The  two  rival  interpretations  of  these  docu- 
ments— both  probably  referring  to  the  "suffering  Serv- 
ant of  Jahveh" — are  that  the  respective  writers  had 
in  their  minds  either  (1)  an  individual  suffering,  dying, 
and  rising  "  superman,"  or  divine  man,  or  God,  or  (2) 
that  they  (primarily,  at  least)  referred  to  the  collective 
remnant  of  Israel  and  its  sufferings  during  and  after 
the  exile  and  subsequent  restoration  to  God's  favour. 

Now,  it  is  a  remarkable  but  at  the  same  time  indis- 
putable fact  that  all  the  extant  Jewish  literature,  both 
pre  and  post  exilic,  apocalyptic  and  apocryphal  alike, 
and  even  such  notices  as  we  meet  with  in  the  greater 
writing  prophets,  invariably  depict  the  future  Messiah 
("  Christ")  as  a  triumphant  conqueror  and  prince  who 
will  in  some  way  restore  the  ancient  glories  of  Israel  and 
abase  the  enemies  of  God's  ancient  people.2     Even  for 

1  Gressmann  even  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  chap.  53  is  really  a  hymn 
belonging  to  the  "mystery"  of  the  Adonis-cult,  sung  by  Jewish  mysta  on 
that  god's  death-day,  and  celebrating  his  birth,  death,  and  resurrection. 
But  there  are  many  and  great  objections  to  this  view:  e.  g.,  Adonis  is  always 
depicted  as  a  beautiful  youth,  whereas  the  "servant"  has  "no  comeliness" 
and  is  "despised  and  rejected  of  men."  There  are  also  other  differences. 
Isaiah  53  :  12  was  interpreted  by  post-Christian  (and  probably  by  pre- 
Christian)  Jews  of  Moses,  who  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death  (Ex.  33  :  32), 
and  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors  (those  who  died  in  the  wilderness), 
and  bare  the  sins  of  many  that  he  might  atone  for  the  sin  of  the  golden 
calf  (Sotah.,  14). 

2  The  present  writer  has  worked  out  this  view  at  some  length  in  his  Jesus 
the  Christ:  Historical  or  Mythical?  (191 2),  chap.  1,  to  which  the  reader  is 
referred.  Drews,  however,  claims  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  79)  that  besides 
Psalm  22  and  Isaiah  53,  "in  Daniel  9  :  26  mention  is  made  of  a  dying 
Christ."  This  is  a  difficult  passage  but  probably  has  no  true  Messianic 
meaning.     Driver  quotes  Bleek's  view  of  it,  as  representing  that  of  many 


82    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Philo  Judaeus— a  contemporary  of  Jesus  and  a  man  well 
versed  in  the  mystical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures — the  Messiah  is  to  be  a  man  of  war,  who 
will  crush  all  the  foes  of  Judah.1  There  is  no  Jewish 
literature  extant — except,  possibly,  Psalm  22  and  Isaiah 
53 — that  lend  any  support  to  the  theory  of  a  pre-Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  a  suffering  and  rising  Christ  as  being  in 
vogue  amongst  the  Jews,  and  if  such  a  notion  were  en- 
tertained by  any  Judaeo-syncretist  circles  they  have  most 
carefully  and  successfully  refrained  from  placing  their 
views  on  record  in  any  literary  form. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  interpretation  that  the  Servant 
meant  the  faithful  remnant  who  returned  from  the  exile 
has  been  the  view  held  by  Jewish  teachers  in  all  ages  and 
was  the  universal  interpretation  in  the  time  of  Jesus. 

Jesus-cults 

The  first  English  writer  to  urge  this  hypothesis  in  any 
full  and  systematic  manner  was  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,2 
who  states  his  theory  as  follows:  "That  Joshua  is  a  purely 
mythical  personage  was  long  ago  decided  by  the  histor- 
ical criticism  of  the  school  of  Colenso  and  Kuenen;  that 
he  was  originally  a  solar  deity  can  be  established  at  least 
as  satisfactorily  as  the  solar  character  of  Moses,  if  not 
as  that  of  Samson.  And  when  we  note  that  in  Semitic 
tradition  (which  preserves  a  variety  of  myths  which  the 
Bible-makers,  for  obvious  reasons,  suppressed  or  trans- 
formed) Joshua  is  the  son  of  the  mythical  Miriam,3  that 
is  to  say,  there  was  probably  an  ancient  Palestinian  sun- 
modem  scholars.  For  particulars  of  this,  see  Driver's  Lit.  of  the  O.  T.,  s.  v. 
"Daniel,"  C,  9,  and  cf.  the  LXX  reading  of  the  passage. 

1  Kara&TpaTapx&v  Kal  iroXe/aQv  edvy. 

2  See  especially  his  Christianity  and  Mythology  (1900),  pp.  82  and  83.  He 
has  since  been  followed  by  Professor  W.  B.  Smith;  see  his  Der  Vorchrist- 
liche  Jesus  (1906),  passim. 

3  Citing  Baring  Gould,  Legends  of  O.  T.  Characters  (1871),  II,  138.  The 
statement  rests  wholly  upon  a  comparatively  modern  and  untrustworthy 
Arab  tradition. 


JESUS-CULTS  83 

god,  Jesus  the  son  of  Mary,  we  are  led  to  surmise  that 
the  elucidation  of  the  Christ-myth  is  not  yet  complete." 
The  inference  drawn  from  this  is,  of  course,  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  merely  a  later  reflex  of  the  same  mythic  idea.1 

It  would  be,  indeed,  difficult  to  meet  with  a  fuller  or 
more  complete  tissue  of  assumptions  than  we  have  here. 
It  is  not  going  too  far  to  state  that  not  a  single  one  of  the 
above  statements  has  been  decided  at  all.  The  whole  of 
this  theory  still  remains  a  pure  speculation  with  just  suf- 
ficient plausibility  to  render  it  a  debatable  proposition. 

But  let  us  leave  Mr.  Robertson  and  turn  to  a  writer 
who  is  more  precise  and  careful  in  his  presentment  of 
the  case  for  a  pre-Christian  Jesus.  Professor  W.  B. 
Smith  starts  from  the  statement  found  in  Acts  18  :  25, 
that  Apollos  preached  "the  things  of  Jesus"  (ra  irepl  tov 
T770-0O)  while  he  was  only  acquainted  with  the  baptism 
of  John.  These  "things,"  he  supposes,  refer  to  some 
doctrines  peculiar  to  an  old  cult-god  named  Jesus,  who 
was  worshipped  by  the  Baptist  and  his  followers. 

But  the  explanation  added  by  the  author  of  the  Acts, 
when  rightly  understood,  gives  the  true  key  to  the  mean- 
ing of  this  brief  expression.  John's  baptism  was  merely 
one  of  repentance  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the 
recognition  and  acceptance  of  the  Coming  One  (0  'Epxdpe- 
vos).  Of  the  doctrines  of  this  Coming  One,  and,  appar- 
ently, even  of  his  identity,  John  seems  to  have  had  very 
little  definite  knowledge.2  It  is  not  probable  that  John 
was  the  head,  or  representative,  of  any  society,  or  cult, 
or  that  he  had  any  cult-doctrines  to  impart.    He  seems 

1  Weinel  says  of  this  theory  of  identity  (1st  das  liberale  Jesushild  wider- 
legt?,  p.  91)  that  any  argument  based  upon  the  connexion  of  Jesus  with 
Joshua  is  "simply  grotesque."  And  he  carries  with  him  the  great  mass  of 
scholars. 

2  It  is  true  that,  according  to  one  account  (John  1  :  36),  the  Baptist  once 
identified  Jesus  with  him;  but  the  synoptists  state  that  just  before  his 
execution  John  sent  to  Jesus  to  ask  whether  he  were  really  the  One  or 
whether  they  had  still  to  look  for  him  elsewhere  (see  Matt.  11:3;  Luke 
7  :  19  and  20). 


84    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

to  have  been  an  individual  bearing  a  certain  likeness  to 
the  prophets  of  old,  who  felt  himself  compelled  to  come 
forward  to  announce  the  speedy  advent  of  the  expected 
Messiah,  to  say  that  the  latter  was  at  hand.  And  with 
this  view  the  Gospels  agree.  Such  doctrines  as  the 
cross,  the  resurrection,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
were  yet  to  be  unfolded.1  This  passage,  in  fact,  affords 
no  proof,  or  even  presumption,  of  the  existence  of  an 
ancient  cult  of  Jesus-worshippers  with  peculiar  doctrines 
which  then  required  (so  to  speak)  bringing  up  to  date. 

Another  supposed  indication  of  the  existence  of  a  pre- 
Christian  Jesus-cult  (or  cults)  is  derived  from  an  obscure 
sect  called  the  Jessaioi,2  referred  to  by  Epiphanius  (fourth 
century  A.  D.,  Hcer.,  XXIX),  and  believed  by  him  to  have 
been  in  existence  before  the  time  of  Christ.  Professor 
von  Soden  thinks  (Hat  Jesus  gelebt?,  English  transla- 
tion, p.  28;  cf.  Isaiah  n  :  1-10;  I  Sam.  16  :  1;  Ro- 
mans 15  :  12)  that  their  name  was  derived  from  Jesse. 
" Perhaps,"  he  says,  "it  was  a  sect  which  believed  in  the 
Messiah,  and  expected  him,  as  the  Son  of  David,  to  come 
of  the  root  of  Jesse,  or  Isai."  Professor  Drews,  on  the 
other  hand,  would  prefer  to  think  that  they  were  more 
probably  named  after  an  old  cult-god — Jesus. 

But  we  cannot  place  any  confidence  here  in  Epipha- 
nius, who  was  a  prejudiced  and  credulous  man.  No  other 
ancient  author  even  mentions  these  sectaries  amongst 
the  numerous  bodies  of  heretics. 

It  is  also  impossible  to  draw  any  conclusions  as  to  a 
Jesus-cult  from  their  name;  nor  can  we  be  even  moder- 
ately certain  that  they  existed  at  all  in  pre-Christian 
times.  Much  the  same  also  may  be  said  of  the  Naasenes, 
or  Ophites  (serpent- worshippers) ,  a  Gnostic  sect  whose 
chief  tenet  was  belief  in  a  spiritual  Christ-ason,  who  de- 

1  The  disciples  of  John  are  differentiated  in  the  Acts  and  elsewhere  by 
their  lack  of  the  pentecostal  gifts. 
2'Iea-o-atot;  also  "Jessaer,"  "Jessacs,"  and  "Jessenes." 


JESUS-CULTS  85 

scended  into  the  material  chaos  to  assist  Sophia  (Wis- 
dom) in  her  efforts  to  emancipate  the  pre-existing  souls 
of  men  from  the  bondage  of  matter.  This  Christ-aeon 
for  a  time  tenanted  the  body  of  Jesus,  entering  it  at  his 
baptism  and  leaving  it  before  his  crucifixion. 

But  here,  again,  the  Christian  flavour,  which  is  dis- 
cernible in  their  doctrines,  probably  dates  from  after 
the  time  of  Jesus.  We  have  no  proof  whatever  that 
these  elements  existed  among  the  original  tenets  of  the 
serpent- worshippers. 

A  great  deal  has  also  recently  been  made  out  of  the 
ancient  Naasene  hymn,  preserved  by  Hippolytus  {Re}, 
of  All  Her.,  V,  5).  After  describing  the  woes  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  human  soul  during  its  wanderings  upon  earth,1 
the  writer  of  the  hymn  continues: 

"  But  Jesus  said:  Father,  behold 
a  war  of  evils  has  arisen  upon  the  earth; 
it  comes  from  thy  breath,  and  ever  works: 
Man  strives  to  shun  this  bitter  chaos, 
but  knows  not  how  he  may  pass  (safely)  through  it; 
therefore,  do  thou,  O  Father,  send  me: 
bearing  thy  seals  I  will  descend  (to  earth); 
throughout  the  ages  I  will  pass; 
all  mysteries  I  will  unfold, 
all  forms  of  godhead  I  will  unveil, 
all  secrets  of  thy  holy  path 
styled  GNOSIS  (knowledge)  I  will  impart  [to  man]." 

Now,  this  hymn — of  which  the  above  quotation  forms 
the  concluding  part — shows  clearly  that  this  sect,  after 
the  time  of  Christ,  professed  a  theosophical  form  of 
Christianity.  But  we  have  no  evidence  to  show  that 
they  did  so  before  that  time,  and  the  identification  of 
the  Saviour-aeon  with  Jesus  is  more  likely  (in  the  absence 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary)  to  be  a  post-Christian  im- 

1  Metempsychosis  (transmigration)  is  probably  meant  here.    The  hymn 
in  its  present  form  is  very  corrupt  and  has  been  much  interpolated. 


86    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

provement  upon  an  older  scheme  of  pagan  Gnosticism. 
Moreover,  we  do  not  know,  even  approximately,  the  date 
of  this  hymn.  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  cautiously  remarks 
that  it  is  "old — no  one  can  say  how  old" — a  sufficiently 
vague  statement.  Professor  Drews  subsequently  goes 
beyond  this,  and  tells  us  that  it  is,  "according  to  all  ap- 
pearances, a  pre-Christian  hymn."  It  would  be  inter- 
esting to  learn  what  proofs  there  are  of  this;  but  these 
are  not  vouchsafed  to  us.  The  mere  fact  that  these 
Naasenes  made  use  of  both  St.  Paul's  epistles  and  the 
fourth  Gospel  certainly  suggests  very  strongly  that  the 
semi- Christian  flavour  of  their  system  was  derived  from 
post-Christian  sources.  Moreover,  even  in  the  later 
form  of  their  doctrines,  Jesus  is  not  a  "god"  in  any  real 
sense  of  the  term — least  of  all  a  dying  and  rising  god.  He 
is  merely  the  temporary  embodiment  of  one  of  the  ceons 
of  the  Plerorna,  who  comes  down  to  impart  divine  and 
saving  knowledge  (Tvwris)  to  mankind.  This  fact,  in- 
deed, in  itself  entirely  refutes  the  theory  that  the  Na- 
asenes worshipped  a  dying  and  reviving  cult-god  of  any 
kind,  as  the  modern  mythicist  would  have  us  believe  both 
the  pre-  and  post-Christian  "Jesuists"  and  "Christists" 
did. 

But  the  most  plausible  argument  advanced  so  far  is 
found  in  the  document  known  as  the  Parisian  Magic 
Papyrus,  the  date  of  which  is  referred  to  the  fourth  or 
fifth  century  A.  D.    In  this  the  following  lines  occur: 

1.  1549.     opKL^co  ere  Kara  tov  fiap^a/covpcd*  vacraapi. 
1.  31 19.     6p/a£w  ere  Kara   tov   deov  tcdv   "EfipaLow   Irjcrov 
[la/3at,r)]. 

Here  vaaaapi  is  identified  with  Nasaria  and  made  inter- 
changeable with  rov  Beov  tmv  ~E/3paL(ov  'Irjcrov,  the  whole 
being  understood  to  mean,  "I  conjure  you  by  the  Protec- 
tor"; "I  conjure  you  by  Jesus  the  god  of  the  Hebrews" 
— these  being  formula  used  in  the  exorcising  of  demons. 


JESUS-CULTS  87 

Here,  once  more,  we  have  not  a  shred  of  evidence  to 
show  that  these  formula  are,  in  their  present  shape  at 
least,  pre-Christian.  It  is,  indeed,  far  more  probable 
that  the  document,  if  it  dates  in  any  form  from  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  was  interpolated  with  the  name  Jesus 
after  this  had  gained  repute  as  a  word  of  power  (cf.  Acts 
3:6;  4  :  10;  19  :  13  with  Mark  9  :  38;  Luke  9  :  49). 
In  short,  there  are  no  safe  indications  here  either  of  a 
pre-Christian  cult  of  any  kind.1  Indeed,  Professor  Drews 
seems  to  be  conscious  of  the  weakness  of  this  part  of  the 
current  mythical  hypothesis;  for  at  one  of  the  public 
discussions,  held  in  Germany  during  19 10,  he  was  care- 
ful to  insist  that  his  thesis  that  the  Founder  of  Christian- 
ity was  a  purely  mythical  character  did  not  depend  upon 
the  existence  of  a  pre-Christian  cult-god  named  Jesus, 
thus  differing  from  both  Robertson  and  Smith,  who  make 
it  the  basis  and  main  support  of  their  respective  theories. 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  statement  that  the  two  ideas 
— a  "Christ"  and  a  "Jesus" — might  be  combined,  and 
that  Jesus  was  merely  the  general  name  for  the  saviour 
and  redeemer,  it  would  be  interesting  to  learn  where,  in 
pre-Christian  literature,  the  expected  Messiah,  or  Christ, 
is,  by  anticipation,  named  Jesus,2  or  the  expectation  itself 

1  As  against  the  cult-god  theory,  the  following  passages  in  the  Gospels 
should  be  carefully  studied:  Matt.  16  :  22/.;  20  :  17-19;  Mark  8  :  31-33; 
9  :  31;  10  :  S3')  Luke  9  :  22-24.  The  synoptists  unanimously  declare  that 
when  Jesus  announced  his  resolve  to  become  a  sacrifice  at  Jerusalem  his 
disciples  rejected  this  view  of  the  Messianic  office,  Luke  adding  that  "they 
understood  none  of  these  things."  Had  the  disciples  been  members  of  a 
cult  or  brotherhood  worshipping  a  suffering  Messiah,  or  a  cult-god  named 
Jesus,  as  Professor  Drews  postulates,  it  would  have  been  at  once  intelligible 
to  them  and  they  would  have  been  represented  as  encouraging  him  in  his 
resolution. 

2  Professor  Drews  appears  to  think  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of 
Jesus,  p.  195)  that  because  "Matthew"  says  that  the  Child  of  Mary  was  to 
be  called  Jesus  (1  :  21),  and  then  identifies  him  with  the  virgin's  son  of 
Isaiah  7  :  14  (Matt.  1  :  23),  Immanuel  "is  also  the  meaning  of  Jesus"! 
This  is  not  so  in  the  sense  required  by  his  theory;  and,  moreover,  would 
be,  in  any  case,  post-  (and  not  pre-)  Christian  evidence  for  that  hypothesis. 

For  an  analysis  and  discussion  of  the  Hebrew  word  a-lmah,  and  its  Greek 


88    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

regarded  as  in  any  sense  identical  with  the  cultual  wor- 
ship of  a  god  of  that  name  who  had  previously  effected 
a  temporal  salvation  for  the  Hebrew  people.  Until  this 
evidence  is  forthcoming  the  theory  must  remain  a  mere 
unsubstantiated  speculation. 

equivalents,  irapdhos  and  vedvis,  see  the  present  writer's  A  Critical  Ex- 
amination of  the  Evidences  for  the  Doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  Appendix  E 
(1908). 


CHAPTER  V 

BETHLEHEM.   NAZARETH  AND  NAZAREAN.   GALILEE 

Bethlehem 

It  is,  perhaps,  somewhat  remarkable,  in  view  of  mod- 
ern controversies  respecting  the  birth  of  Jesus,  that 
there  should  be  in  Palestine  two  places  bearing  the  name 
of  Bethlehem.  The  less  famous  of  these,  now  repre- 
sented by  the  little  village  called  Beit  Lahm,  is  situated 
about  seven  miles  northwest  of  the  present  town  of  Naz- 
areth. It  is  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Joshua  (19  :  15), 
where  it  is  stated  to  be  a  portion  of  "the  inheritance  of 
the  children  of  Zebulun."  1 

The  other  Bethlehem — about  six  miles  from  Jerusalem 
— often  distinguished  from  the  former  by  the  addition  of 
the  word  "Judah"  (Judges  17  :  8  and  9;  19  :  18;  Ruth 
1:1),  or  "Ephratah"  (Micah  5  :  2),  is  generally  sup- 
posed to  have  derived  the  latter  appellation  from  be- 
ing situated  in  a  district  so  named  (I  Sam.  17  :  12). 
Bethlehem  Ephratah  (nrnSW  DHTWa)  is  the  reading  of  the 
Massoretic  text  in  Micah  5:2,  though  here  the  LXX 
has  "Bethlehem  house  of  Ephratah"  (BrjOXee/j.  oIkos  [tov] 
'Ecfrpadd),  which  doubtless  has  suggested  to  Professor 
G.  A.  Smith  the  omission  of  -lehem  and  the  writing 
of  the  word  "Beth-Ephratah."  The  usual  interpreta- 
tion of  Bethlehem,  "house  of  bread,"  and  of  Ephratah, 
"fruitful,"  are  no  doubt  allusions  to  the  former  fertility 
of  the  district.  A  doubtful  proposal,  however,  has  re- 
cently been  made  to  find  in  Bethlehem  the  name  of  the 

1  In  the  Talmud  it  is  termed  nwts,  commonly  regarded  as  a  corruption 
of  n>nxj,  "of  Nazareth." 

89 


90    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

god  Lakhmu,  which  is  known  to  us  from  the  opening 
of  the  Babylonian  creation  epic.  But  here  Professor 
Konig  protests  (Expository  Times,  September,  19 13,  p. 
547):  "Are  we  to  suppose,"  he  asks,  "that  even  David 
worshipped  Lachmu  in  Bethlehem ?,:  And  he  points 
out  that  the  prefix  "Beth-  also  occurs  in  combination 
with  many  other  words  which  do  not  designate  any  god, 
as,  for  instance,  in  Beth  Diblathayim."1 

Now,  since  many  modern  scholars,  including  the  vast 
majority  of  German  critics,  while  holding  to  the  historic- 
ity of  Jesus,  reject  the  traditional  place  of  his  birth  for 
one  which  they  would  place  in  Galilee,  it  might  be  worth 
while  to  consider  whether  there  has  been,  either  before 
or  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Christ,  any  confusion  be- 
tween these  two  Bethlehems.  If  the  Messiah  really  were 
ever  said  to  have  been,  or  to  be  destined  to  be,  born 
in  Galilee,  according  to  some  Ephraimitic  or  northern 
tradition  now  lost,  then  the  Bethlehem  Zebulun — if  that 
place  were  named  either  in  tradition  or  prophecy — 
might  possibly  have  been  changed  by  the  compilers  of 
the  two  birth-stories  to  Bethlehem- Judah  (Ephratah), 
in  order  to  fulfil  the  prophecy  recorded  in  our  present 
text  of  the  book  of  Micah.2  Such  a  theory,  however, 
would  seem  to  have  very  little,  if  any,  evidence  to  sup- 
port it. 

Turning  now  to  the  views  of  the  present-day  mythi- 
cists,  we  find  Professor  Drews  asserting  a  theory  some- 
what similar.  The  Messiah  of  the  Israelite-myth  was, 
he  says  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  81),  to  be  undoubtedly  a 
Galilean  by  birth;  but  the  authors  of  the  birth-narra- 
tives "invented  the  abstruse  story  of  the  journey  of  his 
parents  to  Bethlehem"  in  order  to  connect  Jesus  with 

1  Professor  Sayce,  however,  says  (Patriarchal  Palestine,  p.  82):  "Mr. 
Tomkins  is  probably  right  in  seeing  even  in  Bethlehem  the  name  of  the 
primeval  Chaldean  deity  Lakhmu"  (later  Anu;  cf.  also  op.  cit.,  p.  260). 

2  Or,  perchance,  altered  previously  in  the  text  of  Micah  by  the  Masso- 
retic  redactors? 


BETHLEHEM  91 

the  House  of  David,  from  which  the  southern,  or  Judah- 
ite,  mythical  Messiah  was  to  be  descended  (Micah  5:2). 

Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  rather 
different  explanation  of  the  choice  of  Bethlehem.  It 
was  selected  purely  for  mythical  reasons.  "The  cave 
of  Bethlehem,"  he  asserts  (Christianity  and  Mythology,  p. 
329),  "had  been  from  time  immemorial  a  place  of  wor- 
ship in  the  cult  of  Tammuz,  as  it  actually  was  in  the 
time  of  Jerome;  and,  as  the  quasi-historic  David  bore 
the  name  of  the  sun-god  Daoud,  or  Dodo  (Sayce,  Hibb. 
Lects.,  pp.  56  and  57),  who  was  identical  with  Tammuz, 
it  was  not  improbable  on  that  account  that  Bethle- 
hem was  traditionally  the  city  of  David,  and  therefore, 
no  doubt,  was  deemed  by  the  New  Testament  myth- 
makers  the  most  suitable  place  for  the  birth  of  Jesus,1 
the  mythical  descendant  of  that  quasi-historical  mon- 
arch and  the  pseudo-historical  embodiment  of  the  god 
Tammuz,  or  Adonis. "  We  will  take  Mr.  Robertson's 
view  of  the  matter  first  of  all. 

The  statement  that  Bethlehem  had  been  "from  time 
immemorial  a  place  of  worship  in  the  cult  of  Tammuz" 
has  no  historical  foundation.  The  emperor  Hadrian, 
it  is  said,  to  annoy  the  Jews,  set  up  an  image  of  Venus 
(the  mother  of  Adonis)  on  the  site  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  while  the  Christians  were  similarly  punished 
by  the  devastation  of  Bethlehem  and  the  planting  of  a 
grove  dedicated  to  Adonis  upon  the  spot  (Jerome,  Ep. 
ad  Paul.,  58,  3).  Whether  the  cult  of  the  latter  god 
had  ever  been  previously  carried  on  in  that  place  is 
wholly  unknown  (see  Frazer,  Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris,  3d 
ed.,  vol.  I,  p.  257).  As  regards  his  further  speculation 
that  Bethlehem  was  probably  called  "the  city  of  David," 
because  the  king  thus  designated  "bore  the  name  of  the 

1  Cf.  the  extraordinary  statement  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  (Berakhoth, 
f.  5,  1)  that  the  Messiah  was  born  at  Bethlehem  on  the  day  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  but  carried  off  from  his  mother  by  a  strong  gale ! 


92    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

sun-god  Daoud,  or  Dodo,"  who  was  worshipped  there, 
Doctor  Sayce  (quoted  by  Mr.  Robertson)  also  points 
out  that  while  Tammuz  bore  the  epithet  (not  name) 
Bod  (" beloved"),  the  same  word  is  also  used  of  Jahveh, 
who  is  addressed  as  Dodi  ("my  beloved,"  Isaiah  5:1), 
and  he  truly  adds:  "We  can  easily  understand  how  a 
name  of  this  kind,  with  such  a  signification,  should  have 
been  transferred  by  popular  affection  from  the  deity 
[Jahveh]  to  the  king,  of  whom  it  is  said  that  'all  Israel 
and  Judah  loved  him'  (I  Sam.  18  :  6)." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  therefore,  that  Bethlehem 
was  called  the  city  of  David,  not  from  a  local  worship  of 
Adonis  carried  on  there,  but  because  all  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion unanimously  declared  that  the  beloved  king  was  the 
son  of  a  great  sheep-master  of  Bethlehem  and  was  born 
and  spent  his  early  youth  in  that  place.1 

Thus  Mr.  Robertson's  hypothesis,  all  through,  is,  to 
say  the  least  of  it,  purely  speculative  and  improbable. 

Professor  Drews's  theory  of  an  abstruse  story  of  a  jour- 
ney to  Bethlehem,  invented  to  secure  for  Jesus  a  place 
in  the  pedigree  of  the  Davidic,  or  southern,  Messiah, 
can  now  be  most  satisfactorily  met  by  showing  that  the 
story  referred  to  is  neither  so  entirely  abstruse  nor  neces- 
sarily such  a  pure  invention  as  it  was  somewhat  hastily 
decided  to  be  by  Strauss  and  later  mythicists.  The  re- 
cent researches  of  Sir  W.  M.  Ramsay  have  now  at  least 
practically  settled  two  much-disputed  historical  points 
in  connexion  with  the  birth-story,  viz.:  (1)  that  Qui- 
rinus  was,  as  Luke  states,  governing  Syria  about  the 
time  of  the  first  census  (9-8  B.  C.)  ordered  by  Augustus, 
and  (2)  the  fact  that  all  persons  residing  out  of  their 
own  proper  nomes  had  to  return  thither  for  registration 
therein.2    In  view  of  these  important  facts,  so  long  con- 

1  David  has  been  explained  as  meaning  either  (1)  "beloved,"  (2)  "pa- 
ternal uncle"  (pron.  m),  or  (3)  as  an  abbreviation  of  Dodijah,  "Jahveh 
is  patron"  (=  Dodai) — best  of  all. 

2  See  Appendix  A  (1). 


NAZARETH  93 

tested,  it  is  for  Professor  Drews  to  demonstrate  more 
clearly  that  this  particular  journey  must  have  been  a 
pure  invention  and  wholly  contrary  to  established  cus- 
toms. Moreover,  that  simple  and  unsophisticated  writers 
like  the  synoptists,  in  telling  this  straightforward  story, 
made  such  an  elaborate  and  artificial  selection  from  al- 
leged rival  and  conflicting  Messianic  expectations,  and  in- 
vented the  stories,  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely.  Such 
a  view  demands  considerably  greater  proof  than  has  been 
adduced  so  far. 

Nazareth 

Professor  Drews  is  extremely  doubtful  about  the  very 
existence  of  Nazareth  in  pre-Christian  times  (The  Christ 
Myth,  p.  59;  cf.  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus, 
p.  200).  His  chief  reason  for  this  doubt  is:  "Such  a  place 
is  not  mentioned  either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  the 
Talmud,  which,  however,  mentions  more  than  sixty  Gal- 
ilean towns,  nor  again  by  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus, 
nor  in  the  Apocrypha." 

This  seems,  at  first  sight,  a  formidable  array  of  adverse 
evidence,  though  only  of  a  negative  type.  But  when  we 
look  further  into  the  matter  such  testimony  is  by  no 
means  convincing.  That  a  small  and  insignificant  vil- 
lage (cf.  John  1  :  46),  buried  miles  away  in  the  remote 
Galilean  hills,  should  not  be  mentioned  in  our  extant 
Jewish  records  is  in  no  way  remarkable.  Why  should  it 
be  referred  to  ?  Nothing  ever  happened  there.  It  had — 
in  pre-Christian  days  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha,  as  also 
from  that  of  Josephus — no  importance  whatever.  The 
compilers  of  the  Talmud,  too,  which  is  believed  to  have 
begun  to  take  a  written  form  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  must  have  at  least  known  of  its  exist- 
ence in  the  fourth  century,  and  for  some  time  previously, 
although  they  do   not  refer  to  it;   for  Epiphanius  ob- 


94    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

serves  (Hcer.,  I,  136)  that  until  the  time  of  Constantine 
it  was  inhabited  only  by  Jews,  while  Jerome  refers 
(Ep.  86)  to  Paula  passing  through  it  in  his  time.  Ac- 
cordingly, if  before  the  fourth  century  A.  D.  there  was 
a  village  of  that  name  peopled  exclusively  by  Jews,  it  is 
clear  that  the  place  did  not,  at  a  comparatively  late 
date,  owe  its  origin  and  name  to  mythical  Christian 
tradition  and  piety,  while  it  is  also  probable  that  it  must 
have  existed  there  for  some  time  before  the  reign  of  Con- 
stantine. We  cannot,  of  course,  absolutely  prove  this, 
owing  to  the  paucity  of  records;  but  it  is,  nevertheless, 
the  most  likely  explanation  of  the  facts  of  the  case  as 
these  are  known  to  us.1 

Again,  in  replying  to  the  argument  of  Weiss  that  it 
"cannot  be  denied  that  it  was  firmly  believed  by  the 
Christians  of  the  first  century  that  Jesus  came  from 
Nazareth,"  Drews  can  merely  say  that  this  statement 
"is  based  on  the  unproved  assumption  that  the  Gospels 
already  existed  then  in  their  present  form." 

It  is  true  that  here,  again,  owing  to  the  literary  bar- 
renness of  the  first  century,  we  have  little  evidence  of  an 
external  character  as  to  the  dates  of  the  canonical  Gos- 
pels.    Still,  there  is  a  great  mass  of  internal  evidence, 

1  The  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  art.  "Nazareth,"  says  that  "Eleazir  Kalir 
(eighth  and  ninth  centuries  A.  D.),  in  the  elegy  'Ekah  Yashebah,'  mentions 
the  priestly  class  of  Nazareth  (msj  =  'Mishmeret'),  doubtless  on  the  basis 
of  some  ancient  authority."  Doctor  Cheyne's  latest  views  on  Nazareth 
are  expressed  in  his  Fresh  Voyages  in  Unfrequented  Waters  (1914):  Naza- 
reth is  an  old  synonym  for  Galil,  i.  e.,  the  southern  Galilee.  The  old  form 
of  the  synonym  is  Resin  or  Rezon.  But  this,  again,  is  a  corruption  of  Bar- 
Sin,  and  Bar-Sin  is  a  shortened  form  of  Arab-Sibon,  which  is  Arabian  Ish- 
mael,  which  is — Jerahme'el !  The  ending  of  Nazareth,  however  (-eth),  shows 
that  it  was  really  the  name  of  a  goddess,  not  of  a  town.  Finally,  "the 
original  form  of  the  gracious  deity's  name  was  Yarliu-Asshur-Rabsinath" 
— a  remarkable  genealogy! 

Paul  Haupt  regards  Nazareth  as  the  new  name  of  the  old  city  Hinnatuni 
(Hinnathon,  Joshua  19  :  44;  Hethlon  [  ?],  Ezek.  47  :  15.  The  Open  Court, 
April,  1909,  p.  198).  Their  common  meaning  is  supposed  to  be  "defense"; 
but  this  and  the  identifications  are  very  doubtful. 


NAZORAEAN  95 

chiefly  appreciable  by  scholars  and  impossible  to  detail 
here,  which  goes  a  very  long  way  to  establish  that  con- 
clusion. And  even  to  the  ordinary  reader  it  is  very 
obvious  that  the  synoptic  Gospels,  at  least,  differ  wholly 
in  their  literary  style  and  phraseology,  as  well  as  in 
matter,  from  all  extant  documents  of  the  second  and 
third,  and  later,  centuries.  The  ideas  which  they  con- 
tain, the  references  and  local  colour,  no  less  than  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  standpoint,  all  belong  undoubtedly 
to  the  first  century  A.  D.  And  these  facts,  amongst 
others,  are  at  any  rate  very  strong  proofs  of  a  relative, 
if  not  absolute,  character  in  their  favour. 

Nazoraean 

For  an  explanation  of  this  designation  of  Jesus  the 
modern  mythicist  usually  pins  his  faith  to  a  critical 
theory  advanced  by  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  in  his  Der 
V orchristliche  Jesus  (1906)  and  repeated  in  Ecce  Deus 
(19 1 2).  According  to  this  hypothesis,  Jesus  derived  it 
from  being  the  cult-god  of  a  sect  who  were  known  as  Naz- 
oraeans  (Nafwpatot),1  and  had  existed  in  pre-Christian 
times  (see  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  XXIX,  6). 

Professor  Smith's  derivation  of  the  title  and  its  mean- 
ing may  be  summarised  as  follows  (Der  V orchristliche 
Jesus,  pp.  142  Jf.;  cf.  36/.;  also  The  Monist,  1905,  "The 
Meaning  of  the  Epithet  Nazorean,"  pp.  25  Jf.).  It 
comes,  he  says,  from  an  old  Hebrew  root  NSR  [or  NZR], 
which  has  the  meaning  of  " guardian, "  "protector,"  or 

1  The  chief  codices  vary  between  Nafwpcuos,  Nafopcuos,  Nafapcuos,  Nacra- 
pcuos,  and  T$a£apr)p6$,  the  last-mentioned  being  very  frequent  in  the  MSS. 
generally,  but  the  first-named  now  appears  uniformly  in  critical  texts. 
Similarly,  the  town  is  commonly  written  Hafapid  or  Nafap^r;  Nafapd  is 
also  found  in  some  MSS.,  and  Keim  (Jesus  of  Nazara)  argues  strongly  in 
favour  of  this  reading,  and  regards  Na^ap^s  (Nazarene)  as  a  true  de- 
rivative from  it.  When  the  common  readings  have  been  corrected,  and 
Jesus  appears  as  the  "Nazoraean,"  there  are  yet  six  passages  left  (Mark 
1  :  9;  Matt.  2  :  23;  21  :  11;  Luke  2  :  4;  John  1  :  45  and 46;  also  Acts  10  : 
38)  where  Nazareth  appears  as  a  place. 


96    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

"keeper."  This  view  is  adopted  by  Drews,  who  adds 
{The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  202):  "In 
his  [Smith's]  opinion  the  name  can  be  traced  to  the  an- 
cient root  N-Z-R,  which  means  something  like  watcher, 
protector,  guardian,  saviour.  Hence  Jesus  the  Nazoraean, 
or  Nazarene,  was  Jesus  the  protector,  just  as  Jahveh 
(Psalm  121  :  5)  or  the  archangel  Michael,  the  angel- 
prince,  who  often  takes  the  place  of  the  Messiah, 
is  known  as  the  '  protector  of  Israel,'1  its  spokesman 
with  God,  and  its  deliverer  from  all  its  cares  (Daniel 
19  :  13;  12  :  1;  Gen.  48  :  16);  the  rabbinical  Metatron 
also  plays  this  part  of  protector  and  supporter  of  the 
Jewish  people,  and  is  regarded  as  the  angel  of  redemp- 
tion, especially  of  the  damned  suffering  in  hell.  The  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus  will,  therefore,  have  called  themselves 
Nazoraeans2  because  they  primarily  conceived  the  ex- 
pected Messiah  in  the  sense  of  a  Michael  or  Metatron,  a 
protector;  that  is,  at  all  events,  more  probable  than 
that  they  took  their  name  from  the  place  Nazareth,  with 
which  they  had  no  close  connection.  It  is  not  at  all  im- 
probable that  the  place  Nazareth  took  its  name  from  the 
sect  of  the  Nazoraeans,  instead  of  the  reverse,  as  is  ad- 
mitted by  so  distinguished  a  scholar  as  W.  Nestle."3 

1  It  is  claimed  that  in  the  nomen  restaur •ationis  of  Marcus  (Irenaeus,  Adv. 
Hcer.,  I,  21,  3)  Jesus  has  this  surname  (Nazaria);  further,  that  in  the 
Parisian  Magical  Papyrus  (1.  1548),  a  god  of  that  name  is  mentioned  (see 
chap.  3,  p.  36).  In  the  former  Jesus  Nazaria  is  taken  as  Jesus  Nazar-jah, 
i.  e.,  "Jesus  (the)  Protector  Jah." 

In  reply  to  any  objection  that  Jahveh  as  protector  is  described  by  the 
psalmist  as  shomer  (*»Dir),and  not  as  noser  ("\?J),  Drew  urges  that  "we  are 
concerned  here  not  with  the  word  itself  but  its  meaning."  But  the  main 
point  in  Smith's  argument  seems  to  be  the  special  connexion  of  the  root 
NZR  with  divine  beings  as  "protectors  of  men."  The  reference  to  Psalm 
121,  therefore,  falls  somewhat  flat,  as  it  would  be  more  to  the  point  to  quote 
a  case  where  Jahveh  had  the  latter  designation. 

2  Smith  further  maintains:  "They  were  close  to  the  Jessaioi  (or  Jessees), 
who  adored  the  same  god  as  Saviour,  or  Jesus,  who  were  themselves  nearly 
related  to  the  more  Hellenic  Gnostics,  who  worshipped  the  same  god  as 
Soter,  or  Saviour"  (The  Open  Court,  January,  1910,  p.  15). 

3  Citing  Siidwestdeutsche  Schulblatter  (1910),  Heft  4  and  5,  p.  163. 


NAZORAEAN  97 

This  explanation  of  Professor  Smith's  is  sharply  criti- 
cised by  Doctor  Cheyne,  who  declares  that  his  view  of 
the  word  is  impossible.  "Need  I  remark,"  he  writes 
(Hibbert  Journal,  191 1,  p.  892),  "that  in  Hebrew  the 
guardian  would  be  ha-noser,  not  ha-nosri?"1 

Professor  Smith's  reply  to  this  question  will  be  found 
in  his  Ecce  Deus  (pp.  320  and  321):  "Inasmuch  as  three 
pages  of  Der  Vorchristliche  Jesus  (47-50)  are  given  to 
the  consideration  of  this  point,  the  answer  would  seem 
to  be  that  one  need  not.2 

"But  when  it  is  said  that  surely  neither  Hannathon 
nor  Nazareth  means  defense,  it  must  be  said  that  author- 
ities seem  to  differ.  Professor  Cheyne  refers  to  '  Han- 
nathon' and  'Nazareth'  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 
One  may  read  the  nine  lines  on  ' Hannathon'  and 
the  interesting  article  on  ' Nazareth'  repeatedly  without 
finding  any  reason  for  the  statement  just  quoted.  Pro- 
fessor Haupt  declares:  'Both  Hittalon  and  Hinnathon 
mean  protection' — a  judgment,  so  far  as  Hinnatuni  is 
concerned,  confirmed  by  other  most  eminent  Assyriolo- 
gists.  As  to  Nazareth,  the  force  of  the  termination  may 
be  uncertain,  even  as  the  termination  itself  is,  but  hardly 
the  stem  Nazar,  which  appears  in  the  older  form  Nasa- 
raioi;  and  about  the  Hebrew  Nasar  (to  guard)  there  is 
no  doubt."  .  .  .  "Nasaree  was  a  religious  term  or  des- 
ignation; it  expressed  some  religious  peculiarity  of  the 
sect  that  bore  it;  and  when  the  multiplied  conceits  of 
linguistic  ingenuity  are  all  finally  laid  to  rest,  the  obvious 

1  The  Hebrew  letter  Tsade  (x)  is  variously  transliterated  as  ts,  q,  tz,  ss,  and 
s;  also,  commonly  by  Professor  Smith  (in  Nasar),  as  z;  e.  g.,  Nazar.  Modern 
Hebraists  generally  write  Nasar  and  Nasoraean  for  Nazoraean. 

2  The  Talmudic  name  of  Jesus,  Jeshu  Ha-nosri  0"\sijn  Vth,  Sanh.  43,  a, 
etc.),  seems  to  be  strong  evidence  against  Smith's  theory.  Similarly,  Nosrim 
(onptt)  cannot  be  the  "protectors."  Smith's  contention,  however,  is  that 
either  Ha-nosri  =  Ha-noser  (*wjn)  or  it  is  a  rabbinical  disguise  of  that 
term,  or,  again,  more  probably,  an  abbreviation  of  N  S  R  I  H,  "keeper  of 
Jahveh,"  or  "Jahveh,  the  keeper." 


98    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

reference  will  be  seen  to  be  to  the  perfectly  familiar  and 
apparent  Hebrew  stem  nasar  (to  guard).  As  Winckler  has 
so  well  expressed  it:  'From  the  concept  neqer  [or  neser]  is 
named  the  religion  of  those  who  believe  on  the  " Saviour"; 
Nazarene  Christians  and  Nazairier.  Nazareth,  as  the 
home  of  Jesus,  forms  only  a  confirmation  of  his  saviour 
nature  in  the  symbolising  play  of  words.'  The  notions 
of  guardian  and  saviour  are  so  closely  akin  that  servator 
and  salvator  are  used  almost  interchangeably  as  applied 
to  the  Jesus." 

It  is  extremely  difficult — not  to  say  hazardous — for 
any  one  who  is  not  a  specialist  in  Hebrew1  to  pronounce 
definitely  upon  the  point  at  issue  here.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  to  the  present  writer  that,  so  far,  the  balance  of  evi- 
dence lies  with  the  Hebraists  as  against  the  mythicists. 

Professor  Smith  lays  great  stress  upon  the  evidence 
afforded  by  Epiphanius  in  favour  of  his  theory — that 
"  careful  and  erudite  heresiograph,"  as  he  calls  him  (The 
Open  Court,  January,  1910,  p.  14).  Epiphanius  says: 
"All  men  called  the  Christians  Nazoraeans" — that  is,  in 
his  time.  And  again:  "The  heresy  of  the  Nazarees  was 
before  Christ,  and  knew  not  Christ."  2 

"There!"  exclaims  Smith,  "the  cat  is  out  of  the  bag." 
But  is  it?  Let  us  examine  into  the  matter  a  little  more 
carefully. 

Beginning  with  the  statements  of  Epiphanius,  we  have: 
"The  heresy  of  the  Nazarees  was  before  Christ,  and  knew 
not  Christ^  Surely,  if  this  means  anything,  it  is  that  Je- 
sus Christ  was  not  a  cult-god  of  this  sect !     Further,  Epi- 

1  Drews  affirms  {The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  202,  note  2) 
that  "  Schmiedel  has  recently  maintained  against  Weinel,  in  the  Protestan- 
tenblatt  (1910,  no.  17,  p.  438),  that  Smith's  hypothesis  is  philologically  ad- 
missible. Hence  the  charge  of  'gross  ignorance  of  the  Semitic  languages/ 
which  Weinel  brings  against  Smith,  is  quite  unjustified." 

2  Hcer.,  XXIX,  6,  %v  yhp  i]  ai'petm  rdv  Nacrapalwv  irpb  Xpicrrov,  ko\ 
XpKrrbv  oik  #$«.  AXXa  ko.1  Trdvres  &vdpwiroi  roiis  XpuTTiavoi/s  Nafapafovs 
iK&\ovv.  .  .  . 


NAZORAEAN  99 

phanius  gives  a  very  confused  account  of  them,  and  seems 
to  think  that,  while  the.Nazoraeans  were  Christians,  the 
Nazaraeans  (Nazarees)  were  Jews.1  Indeed,  his  state- 
ments about  them  all  through  are  both  careless  and  un- 
critical, and  this  fact  alone  detracts  greatly  from  their 
value  as  really  serious  evidence  in  the  case. 

Again,  Marcus,  who  is  called  in  as  witness  (p.  96,  note 
1),  was  a  second -century  heretic,  and  the  statement  that 
the  invocation  of  Jesus  Nazaria  "goes  back  very  obvi- 
ously and  probably  to  the  remotest  antiquity"  has  no 
historical  evidence  to  back  it.  Neither  has  it  been  shown 
that  the  Naaaapi  of  the  Paris  magical  formula  is  con- 
nected with  the  Nafw/ocuo?  of  the  New  Testament.  And, 
even  if  it  be  considered  as  proved  that  Nazoraean  means 
"guardian,"  it  still  remains  to  be  shown  that  this  word 
is  practically  identical  in  meaning  with  Jesus,  and  still 
more  that  either  Jesus  or  Nazoraios  was  a  pre-Christian 
cult-god. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  from  the  stem  NZR  (*1S2) 
comes  also  the  substantive  nezer,  or  neser  0«f2),  " shoot," 
"branch" — and,  figuratively,  "scion"  (cf.  Isaiah  9  :  21; 
60  :  21).  And  in  n  :  1  the  prophet  promises  that  a 
"branch"  (or  "scion")  of  the  stem  of  Jesse  shall  be 
born;  it  seems,  therefore,  most  probable  that  this  is 
what  is  referred  to  by  Matthew  when  he  says  that  it  was 
predicted  by  prophets  that  Jesus  should  be  called  a 
Nazoraean.2  He  plays  (so  to  say)  upon  the  similarity 
between  the  two  words  as  regards  their  three  root  letters, 
and  declares  in  effect  that  the  A7'(a)2(o)/'-aean  represents 

1  See  Meyboom,  "Jezus  de  Nazoraer,"  Theol.  Tijdschrift.  (1905),  pp. 
529  f.    Cf.  Lepsius,  Zur  Quellenkritik  des  Epiphanios  (1865),  pp.  130  Jf. 

2  "  'Nafwpcuos  KXTjflifa-ercu'  summarises  the  prophecies  referred  to.  Isaiah 
11  :  1  had  called  the  Messiah  (soTarg.)  l»j  =  branch;  Jer.  23  :  5;  33  :  15 
had  called  him  ncx  branch,  and  Isaiah  4  :  2,  hdx  (Targ.  has  'Messiah')." 
Archdeacon  Allen  on  St.  Matthew  in  loco.  The  Arabic  name  for  Christians 
(Nasard,  Koran,  Sura  V)  has  been  derived  from  nasara,  "to  help,"  but  this 
is  doubtful. 


100    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  N(e)z(e)r-aean,1  whose  coming  was  foretold  in  proph- 
ecy, not  any  "watchman-god"  or  "guardian-god"  of  some 
ancient  cult-idea. 

Finally — and  Doctor  Cheyne's  explanation  of  the  ori- 
gin and  meaning  of  "Nazareth"  supports  the  conclusion 
— it  is  also  probable  that  The  Nazoraean,  or  Nasoraean 
means  simply  "The  Galilean,"  a  name  by  which  Jesus, 
especially  later  on,  was  known,  and  particularly  by  pagan 
writers.  The  present-day  Mohammedan  designation  of 
Christians  as  Nazarenes  (i.  e.,  Nasoraeans)  is  merely  the 
equivalent  of  Galileans,  as  the  Emperor  Julian  always 
insisted  on  their  being  called,  i.  e.,  followers  of  the  Prophet 
from  Galilee.2 

After  references  to  Isaiah  41  :  25;  9  :  1,  2,  3,  6,  and  7 
as  having,  in  the  eyes  of  at  least  many  of  the  Jews  of 
the  time  of  Christ,  a  Messianic  significance,  Professor 
Drews  proceeds  as  follows  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historic- 
ity of  Jesus,  pp.  210  and  211  and  note  1): 

Galilee 

"It  is  the  word  of  the  prophet  [Isaiah],  not  a  hard 
fact  of  history,  that  demands  the  birth  of  the  Saviour. 
Then  Nazareth,  with  its  relation  to  nazar,  occurred  at 
once  as  the  proper  birthplace  of  Jesus,  as  soon  as  men 
began  to  conceive  the  episode  historically.  Astral  con- 
siderations may  have  co-operated.  Galilee,  from  gdlil, 
circle,  connects  with  the  zodiacal  circle,5  which  the  sun 
traverses;  even  in  the  prophet  the  Saviour  is  associated 
with  the  sun.4  The  people  that  walk  in  darkness  and 
that  ' dwell  in  the  land  of  the  shadow'  might  easily  be 
identified   with   the   'familiar   spirits'   of   whom   Isaiah 

1  Ancient  Hebrew  was  written  originally  without  the  vowel-pointing  in 
MSS.    "Nezoraeans"  would  mean  "Disciples  of  the  Branch." 

2  Doctor  Cheyne  also  notes  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Joseph,"  sec.  9)  that  the  Ara- 
maic n'sar  (Heb.  "»£u)  means  to  saw;  so  that  "Jesus  the  Nazarene,"  or  (  ?) 
"Nasarene,"  might  merely  mean  "Jesus  the  carpenter"  (cf.  Mark  6  :  3). 

3  Cf.  also  The  Christ  Myth,  p.  240. 

4  Isaiah  merely  compares  him  to  the  sun. 


GALILEE'' .-,  ;•.  •.  ;  iQ* 

'  ,  >  ,  '         •  '  .•»».»»»•        »•' 

','.•.,,.».  ►,'»••»»»»« 

speaks  (8  :  19),  in  whom  there  is  no  light,  who  'pass 
through'  the  land  'hardly  bestead  and  hungry;  and  it 
shall  come  to  pass  that  when  they  shall  be  hungry,  they 
shall  fret  themselves  and  curse  their  king  and  their  god, 
and  look  upward;  and  they  shall  look  into  the  earth, 
and  behold  trouble  and  darkness,  dimness  of  anguish, 
and  they  shall  be  driven  to  darkness.'  They  suggest/' 
he  continues,  "the  souls  in  the  nether  world,  the  stars 
in  their  course  below  the  celestial  equator  which  rejoice 
at  the  birth  of  the  'great  light'  at  the  winter  solstice, 
and  are  led  to  their  time  of  brilliancy.1  On  this  view, 
Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  {Galll  ha-goim)  coincides  with 
the  lower  half  of  the  'water  region'  of  the  zodiac,  in 
which  are  found  the  aquatic  signs  of  the  Southern  Fish, 
Aquarius,  the  Fishes,  the  Whale,  and  Eridanus."  In  a 
note  to  the  above  he  further  adds:  "In  truth,  Zebulun, 
according  to  Gen.  49,  relates  to  the  sign  of  the  zodiac 
Capricorn  and  Naphtali  to  Aries,  both  of  which  belong 
to  the  water  region  of  the  zodiac,  the  dark  part  of  the 
year  (cf.  A.  Jeremias,  Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des 
alten  Orients,  p.  398).  According  to  M.  Miiller,  galll 
means,  in  a  derivative  from  the  Coptic,  the  'water- 
wheel.'  A  water-wheel  might  (according  to  Fuhrmann) 
be  traced  in  the  constellation  Orion,  the  spokes  being 
represented  by  the  four  chief  stars  and  the  axis  by  the 
stars  of  the  belt,  the  wheel  being  set  in  motion  by  the 
falling  water  of  the  Milky  Way.2    In  so  far  as  Orion  is 

1  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  evidence  there  is  for  the  mythical 
interpretation  of  these  "spirits  of  the  dead"  (obdth)  as  equivalent  here 
either  to  the  people  that  dwell  in  darkness  ( =  distressed  Israelites)  or  to 
stars  "below  the  celestial  equator" !  The  words  here  have  merely  a  plain 
literal  meaning.  The  prophet  is  denouncing  the  use  of  necromancy,  as  a 
means  of  prying  into  the  future,  and  what  it  may  bring  forth,  by  a  suffer- 
ing people,  and  he  means  nothing  more  than  this.  Any  such  mythical  in- 
terpretation would  be  purely  modern  and  fanciful. 

2  Is  not  Professor  Drews  here  confusing  the  Milky  Way  with  the  constel- 
lation Eridanus?  The  Chinese,  however,  seem  to  have  called  the  Milky 
Way  the  Celestial  River  (tien  ho).    And  the  Egyptians  (later)  regarded  the 


102  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 
c'4.:  :   ?.<•?       ..,*■.-.-• 

the  Hanging  Figure  of  the  2  2d  Psalm,  we  may  note  that 
the  latter  is  a  galil  (Galilean),  and  as  the  constellation 
Orion  is,  as  we  saw,1  astrally  related  to  the  nazar  (the 
Hyades),  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  in  Nazareth  might  be 
deduced  from  this  (see  Niemojewski,  Gott  Jesus,  pp.  161 
and  193)." 

But  to  return  to  the  text.  "We  thus,"  he  continues, 
"understand  why  Galilee,  'the  way  to  the  sea,  the  land 
by  the  Jordan/  2  plays  so  great  a  part  in  the  story  of 
Jesus;  it  was  bound  to  be  recognised  in  a  Messianic  age. 
Hence  this  watery  region  of  the  sky  is  the  chief  theatre 
of  the  Saviour's  life;  hence  in  the  Gospels  the  'Sea  of 
Galilee/  the  Sea  of  Gennesaret,  and  the  many  names  of 
places  in  the  district.  For  the  Greeks  and  Romans  they 
had  no  ulterior  [i.  e.,  mythical]  significance,  and  were 
mere  names,  but  much  like  the  names  of  places  in  Homer 
or  Vergil,  or  the  description  of  the  voyage  of  the  Argo- 
naut by  Apollonius  of  Rhodes.  It  is  incredible  that 
von  Soden  should  seek  a  proof  of  the  historicity  of  the 
Gospel  narrative  in  these  names." 

Again  (p.  212),  he  further  seems  to  attack  even  the 
geographical  existence  of  one  of  the  chief  towns  of  Gali- 
lee at  that  time:  "It  may  be  the  same  with  other  sup- 
posed names  of  places.  In  regard  to  the  most  important 
of  them  all,  Capernaum,  Steudel  has  called  attention 
to  Zech.  13  :  1,  where  it  is  said:  '  In  that  day  there  shall 
be  a  fountain  opened  to  the  house  of  David  and  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness/ 

Milky  Way  as  the  Heavenly  Nile.  Elsewhere  Professor  Drews  speaks  of 
it  as  the  celestial  form  of  the  world-tree!  And  this,  again,  is  equated  with 
the  cross! 

1  Note,  pp.  203  and  204:  "Possibly  nazar  has  also  an  astral  significance  as 
the  Hyades  in  Taurus  have  the  form  of  a  branch  [nazar  ( ?  nezer) ;  in  Zechariah 
semah];  and  Orion,  in  which  we  have  already  suspected  the  Baptist,  seems 
to  bring  the  twig  (Fuhrmann)." 

2  On  the  next  page  he  says  that  the  Jordan  has  an  astral  significance  in 
the  Gospels  and  corresponds  to  the  celestial  Eridanus  (Egypt.,  iero,  or  iera, 
"the  river,"  see  chap.  5,  p.  107). 


GALILEE       .  W 


.  >    >  ■>  ■ 


and  reminds  us  that  in  his  Jewish  Wars  (III,  10,  8)  Jose- 
phus  mentions  'a  very  strong'  and  fertilising  spring 
1  which  is  called  Capharnaum  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
district.'  When  we  read  in  Josephus  the  description  of 
the  fish-abounding  sea  of  Gennesaret  and  the  country 
about  it,  with  its  beauty  and  charm,  its  palms,  nuts  and 
olives,  and  fruit-trees  of  all  kinds,  we  feel  that  no  other 
knowledge  of  the  locality  was  needed  in  order  to  invent 
the  whole  regional  background  of  the  life  of  Jesus  with 
the  aid  of  these  indications." 

Now,  in  Isaiah  9  :  1-7  we  have,  in  the  first  place,  an 
historic  reference  to  the  northern  districts  of  Israel, 
which  had  been  ravaged  by  Assyria  in  734  B.  C.  (II 
Kings  15  :  29),  followed  by  a  prediction  that  a  "great 
light"  would  shine  upon  the  desolate  land  and  its  despair- 
ing inhabitants.  This  relief  is  to  come  through  a  Davidic 
king,  though  how  he  is  to  exercise  authority  over  a  sep- 
arate kingdom  of  Israel  is  not  clear.  Probably  the  text 
of  this  prophecy  is  corrupt,  or  we  have  not  the  whole 
of  the  original,  or,  again,  the  prophet  perhaps  contem- 
plates a  reunion  by  conquest,  or  agreement,  of  the  two 
kingdoms  as  a  part  of  the  mission  of  this  Messiah-prince. 
In  41  :  25 — the  work  of  another  " Isaiah" — the  deliv- 
erer, who  will  be  raised  up  by  God,  is  to  be  a  great  war- 
rior from  the  northeast,  i.  e.,  Cyrus  (vs.  2),  who  will 
restore  " Israel"  to  his  own  land.  This  is  a  later  view 
of  the  contemplated  restoration.  In  11  :  1  the  deliv- 
erer is  to  be  (as  in  chap.  9)  a  Davidic  prince,  more  defi- 
nitely a  " branch"  0?9  °f  the  stock  of  Jesse.  And  here 
we  come  again  to  the  main  point  in  this  part  of  Pro- 
fessor Drews's  thesis.  This  nezer,  or  neser  ("branch"), 
has  suggested  to  the  Gospel  writers  a  pseudo-historical  Naz- 
areth as  the  birthplace  of  this  deliverer  (Jesus),  as  soon  as 
the  idea  came  to  be  historicised.1 

1  Similarly,  Doctor  Winckler    (Ex  oriente  lux,  Band   II,   1906,  p.  59, 
note):  "From  the  word  neqer  comes  the  religion  of  those  who  believe  in  the 


104    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

But  this  is  just  what  did  not  happen !  Christian  tradi- 
tion, as  we  have  already  pointed  out,  uniformly  con- 
nects the  birth  of  Jesus,  not  with  Nazareth,  but  with 
Bethlehem.  The  Nazareth-birth  is  a  modern  critical 
theory  and  opposed  to  all  tradition  both  documentary 
and  oral.  And  whatever  may  be  the  origin  of  the  place 
Nazareth  and  its  relation  to  Jesus — it  is  difficult  to  be- 
lieve that  almost  contemporary  writers  would  be  so 
foolish  as  to  link  him  with  a  then  non-existent  village 
— -we  would  maintain  that  it  is  more  probable  that  (as 
Matthew  seems  to  say)  an  actual  Jesus  was  called  the 
Nazor-aean  (i.  e.,  Nezer-aean)  and  his  disciples  the  Nazor- 
aeans,  through  a  punning  upon  the  identity  of  the  con- 
sonants in  both  words,  which  are  derived  from  the  same 
Hebrew  root  (N  Z  R  or  N  §  R),  than  that  he  was  a  mere 
pseudo-embodiment  of  a  supposed  " guardian-god"  which 
was  worshipped  by  a  sect  hypothetically  existent  in  pre- 
Christian  days.  The  play  upon  the  words  is  a  good  one 
in  Hebrew,  since  the  ideas  of  both  the  branch  of  proph- 
ecy and  the  domicile  (Galilee)  of  the  youth  and  early 
manhood  of  Jesus  are  combined  and  expressed  under 
the  same  term.1 

We  will  now  turn,  in  conclusion,  to  the  astral  con- 
siderations brought  forward  by  Professor  Drews.  It  is 
very  evident  to  a  careful  and  thoughtful  reader  that, 
to  a  great  extent  underlying  the  whole  conception  of  a 
mythical  Jesus,  there  is  an  a  priori  astral  and  zodiacal 
theory  which  is  assumed  to  have  been  current  in  Pales- 
tine at  that  time.     Into  this  preconceived  and  underly- 

Saviour — the  Nazarene  Christians,  or  Nazaraeans.  Nazareth  as  the  home 
of  Jesus  is  merely  a  confirmation  of  his  character  as  Saviour  for  the  symbolis- 
ing tendency"     (Italics  ours.) 

lCf.  the  expression  ^Vjsehj?  ("Kedesh  in  Galilee").  The  view  taken 
by  Doctor  E.  A.  Abbott,  in  Miscellanea  Evangelica  (i),  is  that  "Nazarene" 
and  "Nazoraean"  are  not  different  forms  of  the  same  adjective,  but  that, 
while  the  former  means  "man  of  Nazareth,"  the  latter  means  the  neser,  or 
"Rod  of  Jesse"  of  Isaiah;  and  that  the  people,  recognising  Jesus  as  the 
life-giving  healer,  called  him  the  "Nazoraean"  instead  of  the  "Nazarene." 


GALILEE  105 

ing  framework  the  mythicist  literally  forces — as  we  will 
see  from  time  to  time — all  (or  nearly  all)  the  Gospel 
narrative,  whether  it  bears  reference  to  persons,  events, 
or  even  places.  Let  us  take,  first  of  all,  the  term  "  Gal- 
ilee." 

The  word  gdlil,  "circle,"  "circuit,"  is  used  in  the 
Bible  in  reference  to  a  region  containing  twenty  small 
towns  grouped  round  the  city  Kedesh,1  inhabited  mainly 
by  Gentile  races,  and  hence  means  nothing  more  than  dis- 
trict. It  is  so  used  in  the  lists  of  Tiglath-Pileser's  con- 
quests (II  Kings  15  :  29;  cf.  I  Kings  9:11)  and  also  in 
Isaiah  9  :  1  (A.  V.).  In  the  LXX  we  find  it  in  the  same 
sense,  YaXiXala  aWocfrvXcov,  "Galilee  of  the  Gentiles"  (I 
Mace.  5  :  15),  and  rj  TcfiaXala  simply  occurs  often  in  I 
Maccabees  with  the  same  meaning.  But  Professor  Drews 
asks  us  to  believe  that  in  the  Gospels  it  has  simply  an 
"astral"  (or  mystical)  sense;  that,  in  fact,  Galilee  rep- 
resents merely  the  lower  half,  the  water  region,  of  the 
zodiac.  Now,  what  proof  does  he  offer  for  this  mystical 
interpretation  of  what  is,  on  the  surface  at  least,  a  plain 
historical  narrative?  He  instances  several  zodiacal  signs 
which,  he  avers,  find  their  counterparts  (so  to  speak)  in 
Galilee.  Let  us  examine  these  severally.  Zebulun,  he 
says,  relates  to  the  sign  Capricortms  (he-goat),  referring  to 
Gen.  49  :  13. 

Now,  in  the  "Blessing  of  Jacob,"  the  dying  patriarch 
is  made  to  predict  mainly  that  the  tribe  will,  in  the  fu- 
ture, dwell  along  some  coast-line  and  engage  in  some  kind 
of  maritime  business  (cf.  Deut.  33  :  18  and  19).  There  is 
certainly  no  reference  to  Capricornus  here  and  no  mys- 
tical meaning  involved !  According  to  Josephus  (Ant., 
V,  1,  22),  the  Zebulunites  were  settled  in  the  north  as 
far  as  the  coast  of  Gennesaret  and  perhaps  touched 
the  Mediterranean  shores.  Again,  Naphtali  is  described 
(Gen.  49  :  21,  A.  V.  and  R.  V.,  cf.  Deut.  33  :  23)  as 

1  See  also  Nazareth  and  the  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  by  C.  Burrage. 


106    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

"  a  hind  (n?*K,  ajjaldh)  let  loose."  This,  we  presume,  has 
suggested  the  zodiacal  Aries  (Ram).1  But,  unfortunately, 
the  Hebrew  word  never  means  a  "ram"  (though  a  word 
slightly  resembling  it  [/itf,  djil]  has  that  signification). 
It  means  a  "female  deer,"  or,  according  to  some  author- 
ities, perhaps  a  "wild  she-goat."  Moreover,  the  text 
here  is  probably  corrupt;  for  in  the  LXX  we  have  in 
place  of  the  Massoretic  reading  N.  crreAe^o?  aveifxevov  eiri- 
Bl&ovs  iv  rat  yewtj/jLarc  /caXXa?  ("N.  [is]  a  growing  stem 
producing  beauty  by  its  budding").  Instead  of  *??*&, 
"hind,"  many  scholars  read  "?*&,  a  "spreading  tere- 
binth" (which  seems  to  be  implied  by  (rreXexos  above). 
The  following  clause,  "giveth  goodly  words,"  makes  no 
sense  with  either  reading.  Two  emendations  have,  there- 
fore, been  proposed  as  alternatives,  *1J?K,  "producing 
goodly  shoots,"  and  VTB^J  "yielding  goodly  lambs."  This 
latter  would  give  a  slight  support  to  the  theory  of  some 
connexion  with  Aries;  but  it  cannot  have  been  the 
original  reading,  since  ^lBK,  "lamb,"  is  not  Hebrew, 
though  it  is  found  in  Assyrian,  Phoenician,  Aramaic,  and 
Armenian.  There  is,  in  any  case,  here  no  reference  to 
the  zodiacal  Aries,  or  the  dark  part  of  the  solar  year, 
and  such  exegesis  can  only  be  termed  fanciful. 

The  connexion  of  the  zodiacal  signs  mentioned  by 
Professor  Drews  with  the  mythical  scheme  seems  very 
vague;  perhaps  Aquarius  might  represent  the  source  of 
the  Jordan  and  Pisces  might  then  stand  for  the  numer- 
ous fish  to  be  found  in  Gennesaret.  But,  going  outside 
the  zodiac,  Professor  Drews  contrives  to  bring  in  several 
other  and  southern  signs. 

1  Mr.  J.  F.  Blake,  in  his  scheme  of  identifications  of  the  patriarchs  with 
the  zodiacal  signs,  makes  Zebulun  =  Pisces  and  Naphtali  =  Capricornas 
{Astronomical  Myths,  1877,  p.  106).  Others,  again,  have  traced  the  names 
of  the  heads  of  the  tribes  to  a  totemic  origin.  See  Professor  Smith's  article 
on  the  personal  totem  names  in  the  Enc.  Bib. ;  Doctor  H.  J.  D.  Astley's  art. 
on  "Totemism  in  the  O.  T.,"  in  The  Quest  for  April,  1912. 


GALILEE  107 

Eridanus  is,  of  course,  represented  by  the  Jordan,  its 
earthly  reflection.  The  most  important,  however,  of  these 
signs,  external  to  the  zodiac,  is  the  great  constellation  Orion. 
This  seems  to  play  a  variety  of  parts  in  the  astral  scheme. 

First,  it  may,  we  are  told,  be  regarded  as  somewhat 
resembling  a  water-wheel.  This,  of  course,  fits  in  with 
the  idea  of  gdltl,  "a  circle,"  and  Galilee  as  the  zodiac. 
But  Orion  is  outside  of  the  zodiac  and  therefore  does 
not  seem  to  have  any  particular  significance  in  this 
sense.  Neither  does  it  seem,  from  inquiries  made  by  the 
present  writer,  to  suggest  to  any  one  the  slightest  re- 
semblance to  a  wheel  of  any  kind.  True,  Eridanus  comes 
up  to  the  left  foot  and  the  Milky  Way  up  to  the  right 
hand  of  Orion,  as  the  stream  of  water  does  to  the  mill- 
wheel  which  it  turns.  Here,  therefore,  a  parallel  of  a 
sort  might  be  drawn. 

But  Professor  Drews  sees  something  still  more  im- 
portant signified  by  Orion,  viz.,  the  " Hanging  Figure" 
of  the  2 2d  Psalm  interpreted  in  a  Messianic  sense.1 
This,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  suggested  itself 
to  any  pre-Christian  Jews.  The  picture  drawn  by  the 
psalmist  is  also  rather  that  of  a  solitary  and  exhausted 
man  (signifying  probably  the  pious  portion  of  Israel) 
ringed  in  by  armed  enemies.  These  are  graphically  com- 
pared to  a  pack  of  pariah  dogs  (Cheyne  reads  " lions") 
and  a  herd  of  wild  oxen  which  "  pierce  his  hands  and 
feet"  with  their  teeth  and  horns. 

The  applicability  of  this  psalm  to  the  suffering  Jesus 
was  an  afterthought  of  Christian  interpreters  and  sug- 
gested probably  by  the  quotation  from  it  included  in 
the  " Seven  Words"  from  the  cross  and  the  obvious 
similarity  of  some  of  the  verses  to  the  description  of  the 
crucifixion  scene. 

Furthermore,  it  is  probable  that  Orion  had  to  the 
Jews — and   early   Christians — another  and   quite  differ- 

1  See  Appendix  C. 


108    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ent  signification.  It  is  generally  regarded  as  the  KSsIl, 
or  "Fool/'  who  rebelled  against  God  (Amos  5  :  8;  cf. 
Job  9:1;   38  :  31).1 

The  constellation  certainly  suggests  the  figure  of  a 
gigantic  man  armed  with  a  sword  at  his  side  rather 
than  any  hanging  figure  or  wheel.  Even  if  we  imagined 
the  four  stars  of  the  (roughly)  rectangular  figure  to  repre- 
sent the  hands  and  feet  of  a  man  stretched  upon  an 
X-shaped  cross,  the  belt  would  be  all  awry.  The  fur- 
ther suggestion  (taken  from  Fuhrmann) — that  the  star 
group  known  as  the  Hyades,  which,  along  with  the  Plei- 
ades (above  it),  are  situated  in  the  head  of  Taurus  (Bull), 
have  the  form  of,  and  represent,  the  "branch"  (neser) 
brought  by  John  the  Baptist  (Orion) — is  fanciful  in  the 
extreme.  They  are  a  small  cluster  of  stars  having  the 
form  of  nothing  in  particular,  and  Orion  has  generally 
been  regarded  as  holding  in  his  left  hand  a  skin,  or  shield, 
while  with  his  right2  he  is  striking  with  a  club  the  charg- 
ing Bull.  But  we  have  so  many  suggested  identifications 
associated  with  this  great  constellation  and  zodiacal 
sign — a  water-wheel,  the  "Hanging  Figure"  of  the  2 2d 
Psalm,  and,  lastly,  John  the  Baptist — that  we  may  well 
pause  and  ask  ourselves  whether,  according  to  this 
method  of  interpretation,  it  be  not  possible  to  make  the 
various  zodiacal  signs  and  constellations  mean  almost 
anybody  and  anything,  according  to  the  exuberant  wit 
and  fancy  of  the  critic  or  the  needs  of  the  critical  theory ! 
What  proof  is  there — we  ask  once  more — that  the  people, 
the  mystics  even,  of  two  thousand  or  more  years  ago 
read  all  this  into  the  heavens;  that  they  regarded  the 
various  divisions  and  towns,  and  the  river  and  the  name 
of  Galilee,  as  mystical  and  earthly  reflexes  of  these  celes- 
tial phenomena? 

1  So  also  in  Arabian  and  Semitic  literature  generally.    Later  writers  refer 
to  a  Persian  identification  with  Nimrod. 

2  The  view,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  from  the  inside  of  a  sphere. 


GALILEE  109 

With  regard  to  Capernaum,1  the  most  important  of  the 
supposed  names  of  places,  Professor  Drews  would  seem 
to  regard  the  town  as  wholly  imaginary,  though  he  re- 
fers to  the  spring  Capharnaum  mentioned  by  Josephus. 
He  would  rather  connect  the  latter  with  the  mystical 
fountain  spoken  of  in  Zech.  13  :  1.  Here,  however, 
Zechariah  is  certainly  thinking  of  some  person  of  tran- 
scendent spiritual  powers  and  goodness,  while  the  writ- 
ers of  the  Gospel  state  plainly  that  they  mean  by  Ca- 
pernaum a  town  where  such  a  person  lived  and  exercised 
his  beneficent  powers  for  the  good  of  his  countrymen 
and  all  mankind.  The  town,  no  doubt,  was  destroyed 
in  the  great  war  with  Rome,  but  it  is,  perhaps,  still  to  be 
identified  with  the  ruins  known  as  Khirbet  el-Minyeh  on 
the  northern  shore  of  the  lake.2 

Bearing  in  mind  all  these  various  facts  detailed  above, 
we  think  there  is  little  need  for  wonder  that  Professor 
von  Soden  should,  in  part,  base  the  historicity  of  the 
general  Gospel  narratives  on  the  various  documentary 
references  to  Galilean  places  which  we  find  throughout 
the  records  of  the  evangelists.  These  were  written  while 
the  various  towns  were  (recently)  existent  and  while 
the  events  referred  to  were  yet  comparatively  fresh  in 
the  minds  of  men.  And  if  their  statements  are  not  to 
be  taken  in  their  natural  and  historic  sense,  then  we 
must  hold  that  in  ancient  literature  it  is  more  than 
doubtful  whether  writers  ever  mean  precisely  what  they 
say. 

1  City  of  Nahum  (?  the  prophet). 

2  Macalister  affirms  (A  Hist,  of  Civilization  in  Palestine,  191 2)  that  Tell 
Hum  is  the  correct  site. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   BAPTISM 

It  is  exactly  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  years  since 
C.  F.  Dupuis  published  his  once  famous  book,  UOrigbie 
de  tous  les  Cultes,ou  la  Religion  Universelle  (Paris,  1795), 
in  which  he  asserted  (vol.  Ill,  pp.  619  ff.  and  683)  that 
John  the  Baptist  was  a  purely  mythical  personage  and 
identified  his  name  with  that  of  the  Babylonian  fish-god 
of  Berossus,  Oannes,  or  Iannes;  the  Ea  (Aa,  Ae)  of  the 
more  ancient  Sumerians.  This  theory,  which  depends 
chiefly  upon  an  alleged  identity  of  names,  has  of  late 
years  been  dragged  forth  by  Professor  Drews  and  others 
from  the  obscurity  and  neglect  into  which  both  it  and 
Dupuis's  clever  but  superficial  and  inaccurate1  work  had 
long  fallen,  and  used  by  the  former  scholar  as  one  of  the 
main  props  of  his  mythical  theory  of  Christianity.  We 
will,  however,  defer  its  discussion  until  we  come  to  the 
consideration  of  the  more  modern  form,  and  meanwhile 
pass  on  directly  to  the  criticism  of  D.  F.  Strauss. 

Strauss  attacks  (Life  of  Jesus,  1835,  vol.  II,  sec.  48, 
pp.  49-51)  the  narrative  of  the  baptism  from  an  entirely 
opposite  standpoint  to  that  of  Drews.  He  makes  great 
capital  out  of  the  practical  difficulties  in  which  he  thinks 
the  story  is  involved.  Thus  he  remarks:  " First,  if  we 
suppose  that  for  a  divine  being  to  descend  on  the  earth 
the  heavens  were  opened  to  allow  a  passage  from  his 

1  Mr.  E.  Walter  Maunder,  F.R.A.S.,  late  of  Greenwich  Observatory, 
states,  in  a  letter  to  the  present  writer,  that  "Dupuis  dated  the  constella- 
tions, as  designed,  at  the  very  time  when  the  unmapped  space  in  the  south 
was  farthest  removed  from  a  position  having  its  centre  at  the  south  pole 
of  the  time.  In  other  words,  he  was  between  twelve  and  thirteen  thousand 
years  wrong  " ! 

110 


THE  BAPTISM  111 

habitual  residence,  we  adopt  an  opinion  which  belongs 
to  a  time  when  people  fancied  that  God  dwelt  above 
the  sky.  Besides,"  he  continues,  "the  Holy  Ghost  is, 
according  to  just  ideas,  the  divine  energy  which  fills  the 
universe;  how,  then,  can  we  conceive  that  it  would  move 
from  one  place  to  another,  like  a  finite  being,  and  even 
metamorphose  itself  into  a  dove?  And,  lastly,  to  im- 
agine that  God  pronounced  certain  words  in  human  lan- 
guage has  been  considered,  and  with  good  reason,  highly 
extravagant." 

The  above  criticism,  of  the  "common-sense  order,"  is, 
superficially  at  least,  very  acute  and,  in  a  sense,  reason- 
able; but  in  the  next  paragraph  Strauss  very  justly  modi- 
fies it  considerably  with  worthier  views  of  spiritual  phe- 
nomena.    We  will  also  quote  this  passage  in  extenso: 

"In  the  ancient  church  the  most  reflective  amongst 
the  fathers  considered  that  the  celestial  Voice  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  not,  like  an  ordinary  voice,  produced  by 
a  vibration  of  the  air  and  apparent  to  the  organs  of 
sense,  but  an  internal  impression  which  God  produced 
in  those  with  whom  he  desired  to  communicate;1  and 
it  is  in  this  way  that  Origen  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuete 
have  maintained  previously  that  the  apparition  at  the 
time  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  a  vision  and  not  a  ma- 
terial reality.  Simple  people,  says  Origen,  in  their  sim- 
plicity, think  it  a  light  matter  for  the  universe  to  be  put 
in  motion  or  for  the  heavens  to  be  rent  asunder;  but 
those  who  think  more  profoundly  on  these  matters  see 
in  these  superior  revelations  how  it  is  that  chosen  people 
believe,  in  their  watchings,  and  more  particularly  in  their 
dreams,  that  they  have  had  evidence  by  their  corporeal 
senses,  while  it  has  simply  been  a  movement  of  their 
minds.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  conceive  all  the  scene 
of  the  baptism,  not  as  an  exterior  reality,  but  as  an  in- 
ternal vision  operated  by  God;   and  it  is  in  this  way 

1  See  also  The  Transfiguration,  chap.  8,  p.  163. 


112    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

that  most  modern  theologians  have  considered  the  sub- 
ject." 

We  might,  perhaps,  take  exception  to  the  particular 
use  of  the  phrase,  "an  exterior  reality,"  as  here  prac- 
tically equivalent  to  a  material  phenomenon;  otherwise 
Strauss's  quotation  and  comments  are,  in  the  main,  very 
just  and  true.  Had  Strauss,  however,  lived  in  an  age  of 
psychical  research,  like  our  own,  he  would  have  seen 
and  grasped  all  these  facts  still  more  clearly. 

The  spiritual  view  (if  we  may  so  term  it)  of  the  phe- 
nomena he  then  discusses  in  greater  detail.  "This  mode 
of  explanation,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "is  also  supported  by 
certain  expressions  in  the  First  and  Fourth  Gospels;  as, 
for  instance,  'the  heavens  were  opened  unto  him,''  'I 
saw,'  and  others,  which  appear  to  give  the  scene  the 
character  of  an  internal  vision;  and  it  is  in  this  sense 
that  Theodore  of  Mopsuete  has  said  that  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  seen  by  all  the  assistants,  but 
that  by  a  certain  spiritual  contemplation  it  was  seen  by 
John  alone;  but,  according  to  Mark,  it  was  seen  by 
Jesus  as  well." 

So  far,  Strauss  writes  intelligibly  and  consistently. 
But  at  this  point  he  seems  to  drop  the  clew  which  has 
carried  him  along  safely  thus  far,  for  he  continues:  "In 
Luke,  on  the  contrary,  the  expressions  employed  carry 
a  totally  different  meaning,  such,  for  instance,  as  'the 
heaven  was  opened/  'the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a 
bodily  shape7!  This,"  he  avers,  "is  decidedly  exterior 
and  objective;  consequently,  if  the  complete  truth  of  all 
the  evangelical  recitals  be  contended  for,  it  will  be  nec- 
essary, since  the  recital  of  Luke  is  quite  precise,  to  in- 
terpret all  the  others,  which  are  less  so,  by  it  and  to 
suppose  that  the  scene  they  relate  was  not  confined  to 
John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus.  Olshausen  had  good  reason, 
then,  for  admitting  by  concession  to  the  recital  of  Luke 
that  a  crowd  of  people  were  present  at  the  scene  and 


THE  BAPTISM  113 

both  heard  and  saw  something;  but  he  stops  there,  and 
says  that  this  something  was  undetermined  and  incom- 
prehensible. According  to  this  mode  of  interpretation, 
though  on  one  side  the  theologian  leaves  the  ground  of 
subjective  visions  and  passes  to  that  of  objective  appari- 
tions, still,  on  the  other  side,  he  assures  us  that  the  dove 
which  appeared  was  not  visible  to  the  physical  eye  but 
to  the  spiritual  eye,  and  that  the  Voice  was  not  heard  by 
the  external  ear  but  by  the  internal  perception.  We  do 
not,"  he  adds,  " comprehend  this  pneumatology  of  Ols- 
hausen  in  which  sensible  realities  are  placed  above  the 
senses;  we  shall,  therefore,  leave  this  obscure  interpre- 
tation and  pass  to  the  more  lucid  one  which  says  sim- 
ply that  the  scene  was  undoubtedly  exterior  but  purely 
natural. " 

Here  Strauss  diverges  to  the  views  of  such  rationalists 
as  Paulus,  who  explained  the  opening  of  the  heavens  by 
a  sudden  dispersion  of  the  clouds  or  by  a  flash  of  light- 
ning, the  appearance  of  the  "dove"  by  the  advent  of  a 
material  bird  of  that  species,  and  the  Voice  by  a  clap  of 
thunder,  and  so  forth. 

Now,  at  this  point  it  will  be  seen  that  Strauss,  through 
a  materialised  rendering  of  the  narrative  of  Luke,  en- 
tirely drops  the  suggestion  of  immaterial  phenomena  of 
a  symbolical  character,  expressing  some  actual  spiritual 
reality,  in  which  he  seemed,  at  the  outset,  more  or  less 
inclined  to  acquiesce.  Luke,  he  thinks,  narrates  the 
scene  both  as  objective  and  material,  therefore  we  must, 
for  consistency's  sake,  take  all  the  other  narratives  in  a 
similar  sense. 

But  there  are  two  great  assumptions  implied  in  this 
view  of  the  matter:  first,  that  what  is  subjectively  ap- 
prehended, without  the  active  co-operation  of  the  normal 
senses,  as  in  ordinary  perception,  is  of  necessity  wholly 
non-objective  in  character,  and  this  because  the  said 
senses  do  not  testify  to  it  as  a  material  existence;  and, 


114  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

secondly,  that  the  use  of  language,  ordinarily  applied 
to  sensational  phenomena,  implies  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer  materiality  in  the  phenomenon. 

But  does  Luke  describe  mere  material  phenomena  as 
occurring  after  the  baptism?  Or,  again,  does  he  ever 
represent  these  phenomena  as  being  seen  and  heard  by 
all  the  people  who  were  present?  We  very  much  ques- 
tion both  of  these  assumptions.  His  narrative,  no  doubt, 
can  be  forced  into  this  sense,  but  not  naturally,  we 
think.  Luke,  for  instance,  speaks  of  the  " Spirit"  as 
having  a  "bodily  shape,"  or  "form"  (cycofiaTCKM  etBei), 
which  was  "like  (&?)  a  dove."  But  there  is  really  no 
materialising  here;  even  a  spirit  may  be  conceived  as 
having,  symbolically,  a  "form,"  or  "shape"  (etSo?),  rel- 
atively to  the  observer;  but  this  does  not  necessarily 
imply  materiality,  and  the  next  word  («?)  distinctly  im- 
plies that  it  was  not  a  "real  dove"  of  any  kind.1  It  is 
difficult  to  see  how  the  spiritual  can  be  expressed  in 
human  speech  except  in  words  that  have  ordinarily 
a  material  signification  !  Luke  certainly  does  not  say 
specifically  (or,  it  would  seem,  imply)  that  all  the  people 
saw  the  dove  or  heard  the  "Voice."  The  Voice,  too,  it 
should  be  noted,  is  addressed  solely  to  Jesus:  "Thou 
art  [not  here,  "This  is"]  my  beloved  son,"  etc.  On  the 
whole,  there  is  very  decided  evidence  to  show  that  Luke 
had  not  in  his  mind  a  material  body  and  an  audible 
normal  voice  when  writing  his  account  of  this  scene.2 
As  for  the  necessity  of  bringing  the  other  accounts  into 
line  with  that  of  Luke,  Strauss  lived  in  days  of,  for  the 
most  part,  a  very  mechanical  and  unintelligent  theory 
of  inspiration  and  exegesis,   and   when  orthodoxy  was 

1  Cf.  Acts  2:3.     wffel  TrvpSs  is  analogous  to  ws  irepurTepdv. 

2  De  Loosten  says  (Jesus  Christus  vom  Standpunkt  des  Psychiaters,  1905) 
that  the  phenomena  attending  the  baptism  were  "a  case  of  combined  op- 
tical and  auditory  hallucinations."  So  also  W.  Hirsch,  Religion  und  Zivili- 
sation  vom  Standpunkte  des  Psychiaters,  and  Binet-Sangle,  La  folie  de  Jesus 
(1910-11). 


THE  BAPTISM  115 

lamentably  wanting  in  imagination.  Certainly,  if  Luke 
were,  as  tradition  avers,  a  physician,  we  might  expect 
his  mind  to  have  a  materialistic  bias,  or  at  least  his  ac- 
counts of  spiritual  phenomena  to  be  couched  in  mate- 
rialistic terms.  But,  in  any  case,  the  version  of  Mark  is 
prior  in  point  of  time  and  preferable  in  point  of  diction 
and  simplicity,  so  we  may  take  it  as  the  typical  and 
original  account  of  this  event  and  decline  to  adapt  its 
interpretation  in  any  detailed  sense  to  those  of  other 
narratives. 

We  now  come  to  the  recent  and  important  critique 
of  Professor  Drews,  who  has  dealt  with  the  subject  of 
the  baptism  more  fully  than  any  other  mythicist  and 
takes  up  the  thread  of  the  story  where  it  was  dropped 
by  Dupuis.  He  attacks  these  narratives,  however,  upon 
historical  as  well  as  upon  mythical  grounds.  We  will 
deal  first  of  all  with  his  historical  objections. 

He  says  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  121):  "John  the  Bap- 
tist, as  we  meet  him  in  the  Gospels,  was  not  an  histor- 
ical personage.  Apart  from  the  Gospels  he  is  mentioned 
by  Josephus,  and  this  passage,  although  it  was  known  to 
Origen  (second  century,  Cont.  Cels.,  I,  47)  in  early  days, 
is  exposed  to  a  strong  suspicion  of  being  a  forgery  by 
some  Christian  hand."  In  a  foot-note  to  this  page  he 
quotes  as  his  authority  Graetz,  who  designates  it  (Gesch. 
d.  Juden,  1888,  III,  p.  278)  "a  shameless  interpolation"; 
but  he  offers  no  proof  of  this  statement. 

Again,  Drews  further  continues  {The  Witnesses  to  the 
Historicity  of  Jesus,  191 2,  pp.  192  and  193) :  "It  is  useless 
to  oppose  to  this  [mythical]  conception  of  John  the  fa- 
miliar passage  of  Josephus1   as  proving  the   historicity 

1  "Now,  some  of  the  Jews  thought  that  the  destruction  of  Herod's  army 
[by  Aretas,  King  of  Arabia]  came  from  God,  and  that  very  justly  as  a  pun- 
ishment for  what  he  did  against  John  who  was  sumamed  the  Baptist 
(  ldidvvov  rod  4iriKa\ov[i£vov  BairTicrTov). 

"  For  Herod  slew  him,  who  was  a  good  man  and  commanded  the  Jews  to 
exercise  virtue  both  as  to  righteousness  towards  one  another,  and  piety 


116    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

of  the  Baptist.  The  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  just 
as  doubtful  as  that  of  the  two  references  in  Josephus 
to  Jesus.  Not  only  does  the  way  in  which  it  interrupts 
the  narrative  show  it  to  be  an  interpolation,  but  the 
chronology  of  the  Jewish  historian  in  regard  to  John  is 
in  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  that  of  the  Gospels. 
According  to  the  Gospels,  the  appearance  or  the  death 
of  John  must  have  taken  place  in  the  year  28  or  29 
[A.  D.];  whereas  the  war  of  Herod  with  the  Nabataean 
Aretas,  the  unfortunate  result  of  which  was,  according 
to  Josephus  [?],  to  be  regarded  as  a  punishment  for  the 
execution  of  John,  falls  in  the  years  35  and  36  of  the 
present  era.  Moreover,  the  complaints  against  Herod 
Antipas,  on  account  of  his  incestuous  marriage  with  his 
brother's  wife,  which  are  supposed  to  have  occasioned 
the  death  of  John,  cannot  have  been  made  before  then.1 
In  fine,  John  might  be  an  historical  personality  without 
there  being  any  historical  truth  in  what  the  Gospels 
say  of  him.  His  connexion  with  the  story  of  Jesus  is 
certainly  due  to  astral  considerations  and  the  passage 
we  quoted  [p.  184]  from  Isaiah  40  :  3-5. 

"We  have,  therefore,  no  reason  to  regard  it  as  histor- 
ical."   Let  us  now  take  account  of  these  objections. 

Our  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  two  chief  dates 
(the  birth  and  death)  in  the  life  of  Jesus  has,  up  to  now, 
unfortunately,  been  very  uncertain.  During  quite  recent 
years,  however,  owing  to  the  researches  of  Sir  W.  M. 
Ramsay,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Mackinlay,  and  others,  this 
uncertainty  has,  to  a  very  great  extent,  been  cleared  up, 
and  we  may  now  affirm,  with  a  close  approximation 
to  certainty,  that  Jesus  was  born  in  B.  C.  8  and  was 

towards  God,  and  so  come  to  baptism;  for  that  the  washing  [with  water] 
would  be  acceptable  to  him,  not  for  the  putting  away  of  some  sins  [only], 
but  for  the  purification  of  the  body,  supposing  still  that  the  soul  was 
thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by  righteousness  (Ant.,  XVIII,  5,  2)." 

1  See  Professor  Lake's  article  on  "The  Date  of  Herod's  Marriage  and 
the  Chronology  of  the  Gospels"  (The  Expositor,  November,  191 2). 


THE  BAPTISM  117 

crucified  in  A.  D.  29.  Now,  assuming,  as  is  most  prob- 
able, a  three  years'  ministry,1  the  baptism  must  have 
taken  place  in  A.  D.  26.  It  was  probably  in  this  year 
that  Herod  Antipas  divorced  his  wife  (the  daughter  of 
Aretas)  for  Herodias.  His  war  with  his  wife's  father, 
on  the  other  hand,  could  well  have  begun  in  A.  D.  28, 
and,  indeed,  it  lasted  some  six  or  seven  years  before 
coming  to  a  decisive  issue.  Accordingly,  there  was  a 
sufficient  period  of  time  between  A.  D.  26  and  28  for 
John's  rebuke  to  be  administered  and  his  imprisonment 
and  execution  to  take  place  before  the  death  of  Jesus  in 
A.  D.  29.  Hence,  so  far  as  this  objection  goes,  there  is 
no  case  whatever  against  the  historicity  of  the  Gospel 
narrative. 

As  regards  Drews's  two  other  arguments,  it  will  suffice 
here  to  say  that  the  passage  occurs  very  naturally  and 
appropriately  in  an  historical  digression  relating  to  the 
affairs  of  the  Herod  family,  and  the  very  fact  that 
the  reason  there  given  by  Josephus  for  the  execution  of 
John  differs  from  the  statement  in  the  Gospels  {cf.  Ant., 
XVIII,  5,  2  with  Mark  6  :  17-27)  is  the  strongest  possi- 
ble evidence  against  the  former  being  a  Christian  inter- 
polation. If  it  had  been  concocted  at  a  later  period — 
after  Josephus  wrote — in  order  to  bolster  up  the  account 
given  in  the  Gospels,  the  writer  would  have  been  care- 
ful to  make  it  agree  with  them  on  this  important  point. 
But  it  does  not.  Josephus,  of  course,  may  have  been 
better  informed  than  Mark;  but  this  is  not  likely,  as  he 

1  For  the  arguments  in  support  of  a  one-year  ministry  see  Keim,  Jesus 
of  Nazara,  II,  p.  398;  for  a  two  years'  see  Turner's  article  in  Hastings's 
Diet,  of  Bible;  for  a  three  years'  see  Andrews's  The  Life  of  Our  Lord,  2d  ed. 
(1892).  For  patristic  views  see  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Bible,  I, 410.  The  minis- 
try of  only  one  year's  duration  is  always  assumed  by  the  modern  mythicist 
and,  indeed,  is  essential  to  his  theory.  Cf.  Sepp.,  Heident.  und  dess.  Bedeut. 
fiir  das  Christ  (1883),  I,  168/.;  also  Winckler,  Die  Babylon.  Geisteskult.,  89 
and  100  /.  It  is  the  mythological  year  of  the  sun's  course  through  the  wa- 
tery region  in  January  and  February  until  the  complete  exhaustion  of  its 
strength  in  December. 


118  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

wrote  some  thirty  years  later,  and  Mark  probably  got 
his  information  directly  from  some  of  the  disciples  of 
John  who  had  joined  the  Apostolic  Church.  We  may, 
therefore,  without  the  least  hesitation,  indorse  the  em- 
phatic verdict  of  the  learned  and  judicious  Keim,  who 
pronounced  it  {Jesus  of  Nazara,  I,  p.  16)  "a  splendid 
and  unassailable  account,"  worthy  in  every  sense  of 
being  accepted  as  authentic  history.1 

But  here  Professor  Drews,  as  though  anticipating  this 
conclusion,  shifts  his  ground,  and  urges  that,  even  if 
John  be  an  historical  personality,  there  " might"  be  no 
historical  truth  in  the  Gospel  story  of  his  life.  "His  con- 
nexion with  the  story  of  Jesus,"  he  says,  "is  certainly 
due  to  astral  considerations" — in  other  words,  it  is  en- 
tirely mythical.  This  view  is  set  forth  in  detail  in  the 
following  words  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  122):  "Under  the 
name  John,  which  in  Hebrew  means  'pleasing  to  God/ 
is  concealed  the  Babylonian  water-god  Oannes  (Ea). 
Baptism  is  connected  with  this  worship,  and  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan  represents  the  reflection  upon  earth 
of  what  originally  took  place  among  the  stars.2  That  is  to 
say,  the  sun  begins  its  yearly  course  with  a  baptism,  en- 
tering as  it  does  immediately  after  its  birth  the  constel- 
lations of  the  Water-carrier  [Aquarius]  and  the  Fishes 
[Pisces].  But  this  celestial  water-kingdom,  in  which  each 
year  the  day-star  [sunj  is  purified  and  born  again,  is  the 
Eridanus,  the  heavenly  Jordan,  or  Year-stream  (Egyp- 
tian, iarOj  or  iero,  the  river),  wherein  the  original  bap- 
tism of  the  Divine  Saviour  of  the  world  took  place." 

Before  going  any  further  into  his  detailed  statements 
of  the  theory,  let  us  carefully  consider  the  above  points. 

Now,  in   ancient   Babylonia,  the   home   of   astrology 

1  John  the  Baptist  was  believed  by  the  Jews  to  have  been  born  in  a  7r6\ts 
lovda  (according  to  rabbinical  tradition  at  Hebron,  but  according  to  a 

modern  ingenious  interpretation  of  the  phrase  at  Jutta)  in  the  beginning 
of  the  second  hah  of  the  year  749  A.  U.  C.  (4  B.  C). 

2  Italics  ours. 


THE  BAPTISM  119 

and  zodiacal  mythology,  the  eleventh  month  of  the  year 
(approximately  our  January)  found  the  sun,  at  that  pe- 
riod, in  the  sign  Aquarius,1  the  Water-bearer,  out  of  whose 
jar  is  poured  forth  the  Heavenly  Stream  (Eridanus),  one 
of  the  extra-zodiacal  and  southern  constellations. 

In  this  month,  too,  the  sun-god  revived  from  his  (par- 
tial) death  at  the  winter  solstice  (circ.  December  25) 
and  once  more  started  upon  his  annual  journey  through 
the  sky.  The  resurrection  of  the  vegetation-spirit  (or 
god),  on  the  other  hand,  took  place  in  most  cases  some 
weeks  later,  at  the  commencement  of  spring.  And,  if 
we  may  believe  Doctor  Drews,  this  celestial  phenomenon 
— the  baptism  of  the  young  (revived)  sun-god  in  the 
waters  of  Eridanus,  while  that  luminary  was  in  the  sign 
Aquarius,  from  which  it  emerged  into  the  succeeding 
sign  Pisces — had  its  reflection  upon  earth  as  Jesus  (his- 
torically representing  the  sun-spirit)  being  baptised  in  the 
Jordan,  from  whence  he  emerged  as  the  divine  fish  (Ea  or 
Oannes),  and,  passing  through  the  other  zodiacal  signs, 
reached  the  height  of  his  power,  and  from  that  time  on- 
ward steadily  declined  until  his  death  by  crucifixion.2 

The  latter  portion  of  this  theory  we  will  defer  dealing 
with  until  we  come  to  Chap.  12,  "The  Crucifixion";  mean- 
while, we  will  say  generally  that  Professor  Drews's  theory 
— viz.,  that  the  earliest  Christians  saw  in  these  natural 
phenomena  occurring  annually  in  the  heavens  a  kind  of 
prophecy,  or  forecast,  of  what  was  to  happen  on  earth 
afterwards — is  a  very  great  and  unwarranted  assump- 
tion; it  is,  indeed,  the  7rpcoTov  i/reOSo?  of  the  whole  myth- 
ical theory.  But  let  us  first  review  the  actual  facts  a 
little  more  carefully. 

The  Babylonians  (like  the  Egyptians)  lived  beside  a 

1  In  the  Gilgamesh  epic  it  is  marked  on  the  tablet  by  the  story  of  the 
deluge  told  by  the  "Chaldean  Noah"  to  Gilgamesh,  which  comes  in  quite 
fittingly,  when  the  sun  is  passing  through  the  Watery  Sign. 

2  See  further,  Chap,  n,  "Barabbas." 


120    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

great  river,  which  powerfully  affected  (for  good  and  evil) 
their  whole  lives  and  fortunes.  Both  of  the  months, 
December  and  January,  were  marked  by  great  rains, 
and  floods  caused  by  the  overflowing  of  the  Euphrates, 
with  the  concomitant  effects  of  sickness  and  destruction 
far  and  wide.  Vegetation,  too,  was  seemingly  dead,  and 
the  sun  was  at  the  nadir  of  its  powers  of  stimulating 
reproduction  in  nature.  And  the  question  arose:  What 
was  the  cause  of  all  this — what  did  it  mean  ?  The  sooth- 
sayer (or  astrologer)  accordingly  lifted  his  eyes  to  the 
heavens  and  very  naturally  tried  to  discover  a  parallel 
there  to  what  he  saw  occurring  upon  earth.  And  his 
imagination  soon  enabled  him  to  find  one.  Out  of  a  few 
conspicuous  stars  he  depicted  a  man-like  figure  carrying 
a  water-pot;  a  straggling  line  of  stars  extending  onward 
suggested  a  stream  of  water  issuing  from  the  jar — the 
heavenly  Euphrates  (Eridanus).  This  river  would  then 
suggest  fish  and  a  connexion  with  the  fish-god  (Ea). 
In  such  an  imaginative  way  there  would  spring  up  and 
gradually  develop  heavenly  duplicates  of  the  chief  nat- 
ural phenomena  occurring  upon  earth.  These  were  re- 
flected in  the  heaven,  as  it  were.  Later  on,  no  doubt, 
when  the  more  abiding  nature  of  the  heavenly  phenomena 
was  noted,  the  process  would  be  reversed,  and  the  earthly 
duplicates  then  came  to  be  regarded  as  reflexions  of  the 
heavenly. 

But  all  this  referred  to  the  phenomena  of  nature  only. 
The  myth  proper  is  an  explanation  of  some  occurrence 
in  nature — not  in  history,  which  deals  chiefly  with  leg- 
end in  its  early  stages.  The  personifications  which  take 
place  in  myths,  however,  help  to  link  nature  with  his- 
tory and  to  parallel  events  and  persons  in  history  with 
the  phenomena  of  nature.  Thus  legendary,  and  even 
historical,  stories  often  became  paralleled,  and  even  con- 
fused, with  mythical  ones.  Such  a  process,  however,  in 
no  way  detracts  from  the  historicity  of  persons  whose 


THE  BAPTISM  121 

lives  and  exploits  have  become  regarded  as  analogues  of 
natural  phenomena.  This  fact  is  clearly  shown  by  the 
many  instances  occurring  during  recent  years,  where 
kings  and  others,  formerly  regarded  as  wholly  mythical, 
have  been  found  to  be  real  figures  of  living  men  who 
had  become  confused  with  mythical  personifications  of 
natural  phenomena.1 

In  this  way  it  is  probable  that  John  (and  in  a  certain 
sense,  as  we  shall  see  later,  Jesus  also)  became  analogues 
of  personified  natural  phenomena.  To  the  modern  and 
European  mind  this  process  obscures  and  weakens  the 
historical  character  of  the  human  counterpart;  to  the 
ancient  and  Oriental  mind  it  merely  added  vividness 
and  reality  to  his  picture. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  important  point  in  Drews's 
theory  of  the  mythical  nature  of  both  Jesus  and  John, 
viz.,  that  both  represent  different  phases  of  the  sun  in 
its  two  great  periods  of  ascent  and  descent  in  the  heavens 
between  two  winter  solstices.  Thus,  according  to  this 
view,  John  will  be  the  sun-god  from  July  to  December, 
after  the  advent  of  Jesus  ("he  [Jesus]  must  increase 
whilst  I  must  decrease,"  John  3  :  30),  while  Jesus  repre- 
sents the  god  from  January  to  June.2  This  view  he  fur- 
ther supports  by,  inter  alia,  a  number  of  questionable 
etymologies  and  identities,  etc.,  which  we  will  summarise 
below. 

(1)  Jesus  is  called  by  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
"the  true  light"  (to  <£&>?  to  h\r\6ivov,  1:9);  whilst  Jesus 
calls  John  (5  :  35)  the  "lamp  (\v%w)  that  burneth  and 
shineth."  (2)  John  is  said  (Luke  1  :  26)  to  have  been 
born  six  months  before  Jesus.    This  indicates  the  solar 

1  Many  examples  could  be  given  of  this:  e.  g.,  Minos,  King  of  Crete,  and 
(probably)  Melchisedek,  Priest-King  of  Salem,  etc. 

2  So,  again,  in  the  case  of  Barabbas  and  Jesus  (Chap.  13);  the  former,  he 
says,  represents  the  sun  ascending  to  the  summer  solstice  (circ.  June  25); 
the  latter,  the  sun  descending  to  the  winter  solstice,  when  it  "dies"  (see 
Chap.  11). 


122  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

and  duplex  character  of  both.  (3)  John  wears  a  cloak 
of  camel's  hair  with  a  leathern  belt  (Matt.  3:4).  This 
is  supposed  to  equate  him  with  Elijah  (II  Kings  1:8; 
cf.  Matt,  n  :  14);  and  Elijah  is  a  form  of  the  sun-god 
transferred  to  history;  and,  further,  the  latter  is  the  same 
as  the  Greek  Helios  (*H\to?),  the  German  Heljas,  and  the 
Ossetic  Ilia.  This  statement,  however,  Drews  modifies 
directly  after  making  it  by  saying  that  "at  any  rate 
characteristics  of  this  god  have  been  transferred  to  the 
figure  of  the  prophet"  1  (cf.  Nork,  Realworterbuch,  I,  451^.) 
— a  very  different  thing. 

Now,  (4)  in  his  subsidiary  work  (The  Witnesses  to  the 
Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  190)  we  find  a  few  further  touches 
added  to  his  theory  of  the  identification  of  John  with 
Oannes  (Ea),  and,  moreover,  of  both  with  the  zodiacal 
sign  Aquarius.  He  says:  "Possibly,  however,  he  [Oan- 
nes] was  originally  Aquarius,  as  this  constellation  is 
depicted  as  a  fish-man  in  the  old  Oriental  sphere,  and 
the  constellation  of  the  Fishes  was  afterwards  detached 
from  it"  (see  Creuzer,  Synibolik  und  Mythologie  der  Alten 
V other,  1820,  II,  p.  78).  And,  again  (5):  "We  have  a 
reminiscence  of  this  primitive  astral  significance  of  John 
in  the  fact  that  we  still  celebrate  his  festival  on  the  day 
of  the  solstice2  when  the  constellation  of  the  Southern 
Fishes  rises  as  the  sun  sets  and  disappears  as  the  sun 
rises."  And  also  (6):  "The  newly  baptised  Christians 
used  to  be  called  'fishes'  (pisciculi,  in  Tertullian),  and 
the  baptismal  font  is  still  called  the  piscina,  or  '  fish- 
pond.'" 

But  the  identification  of  Oannes- John- Jesus  with  Aqua- 
rius is,  after  all,  insufficient  for  the  theory,  and,  stand- 
ing by  itself,  would  in  reality  be  damaging  to  it;  so  a 
further  identification  becomes  necessary.  Accordingly, 
we  find  the  following  convenient  one  (The  Witnesses  to 
the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  pp.  1 91-193)  ready  to  hand:  (7) 

1  Italics  ours.  2  Italics  ours. 


THE  BAPTISM  123 

"As  the  one  who  indicates  the  solstices  and  divides  the 
year,1  Oannes  becomes  identical  with  the  sun  itself1  as  a 
rising  and  setting  star.  In  this  way  he  entered  the  myth- 
group  of  Joshua,  Jason,  and  Jesus,  and,  indeed,  corre- 
sponds to  the  Old  Testament  Caleb  as  representative  of 
the  summer  solstice,  when  the  dog-star  (Sirius)  sets  in 
the  month  of  the  Lion,  or  of  the  autumnal  equinox,  which 
is  the  division  of  the  year  equivalent  to  the  former,  when 
the  sun  descends  below  the  celestial  equator  into  the  land 
of  winter.  Joshua  (Jesus),  on  the  other  hand,  represented 
the  winter  solstice,1  at  which  the  days  begin  to  grow  longer, 
or  the  vernal  equinox,2  when  the  sun  again  advances  be- 
yond the  equator  and  enters  victoriously  the  i  Promised 
Land'  beyond  the  Jordan  (or  the  Milky  Way)  of  the 
heavenly  Eridanus,  the  watery  region  of  the  heavens,  in 
which  the  zodiacal  signs  of  Aquarius  and  Pisces  predomi- 
nate." 

The  remaining  portion  of  Doctor  Drews's  theory  must 
be  briefly  summarised.  There  is  also  (8)  a  further  iden- 
tification of  the  Baptist  with  Orion,  "near  which  the 
sun  is  found  at  the  vernal  equinox."  Orion  stands  in 
the  celestial  Eridanus,  in  the  Milky  Way,  at  Bethabara 
(John  i  :  28),  "the  place  of  setting,"3  i.  e.,  near  the  spot 
where  the  sun  crosses  the  Milky  Way  in  the  zodiac. 
"With  one  foot  it  [Orion]  emerges  from  Eridanus,  which 
connects  with  the  Milky  Way  and  seems  to  draw  water 
from  it  with  the  right  hand,  at  the  same  time  raising  the 
left  as  if  blessing — really  a  very  vivid  astral  figure  of  the 
Baptist:  we  have  also  the  three  stars  of  Orion's  belt  in 
the  (leathern)  girdle  which  the  Gospels  give  to  the  Bap- 
tist, and  the  people  are  seen  in  the  constellations  about 
Orion,4  and,  according  to  Babylonian  ideas,  a  meeting  of 

1  Italics  ours.  2  Italics  ours. 

3  Bethabara  means  "house,"  or  "place,  of  the  ford"! 

4  "I  borrow  this  indication  of  the  connection  of  the  Baptist  with  the 
constellation  Orion  from  Fuhrmann's  work,  Der  Astralmythos  von  Christus." 


124    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  gods  takes  place  at  the  vernal  equinox,  when  the  sun 
has  run  its  course  through  the  zodiac. " 

Finally,  referring  again  to  the  phenomena  attending 
the  baptism  of  Jesus,  Drews  says  of  the  "dove"  (The 
Christ  Myth,  p.  118,  note  3):  (9)  "Phereda,  or  Phere- 
det,  the  dove,  is  the  Chaldaic  root  of  the  name  Aphrodite, 
as  the  goddess  in  the  car  drawn  by  two  doves  was  called 
among  the  Greeks.  In  the  whole  of  Nearer  Asia  the  cult 
of  doves  was  connected  with  that  of  the  mother-god- 
dess." l 

We  will  now  deal  with  the  above  points  (1-9)  seriatim 
and  as  concisely  as  possible. 

(1)  The  term  "true  light,"  as  applied  to  Jesus  by  the 
fourth  evangelist,  and  "the  lamp,"  which  Jesus  is  said 
by  the  latter  writer  to  have  applied  to  John,  have  a  much 
simpler  source  than  the  astral-mythical  origin  proposed 
by  Doctor  Drews.  Light  was  everywhere  associated  in 
ancient  religions  with  God  and  goodness,  just  as  the  re- 
verse of  these  terms  was  identified  with  darkness  in  both 
a  literal  and  a  figurative  sense.  In  the  Aryan  Rig-Veda, 
Mitra  was  the  representative  of  the  heaven  of  day,  as 
yet  expressly  distinguished  from  the  sun.  Later  Mith- 
raism  identified  him  with  the  sun  as  both  the  god  of 
light  and  goodness.  Among  the  Semitic  Hebrews  we 
find  a  similar  use  of  light  as,  at  least,  emblematic  and 
symbolical  of  God  and  his  attributes.  Thus,  the  Psalm- 
ist says  (27  :  1):  "Jahveh  is  my  light  and  my  salva- 
tion"; and,  again  (118  :  27):  "Jahveh  who  hath  showed 

Also  see,  as  to  the  astral  features  of  the  Baptist,  Niemojewski's  Bog  Jezus 
(1909),  a  book  which  rests  on  the  astral-mythical  theories  of  Dupuis  and  of 
the  modern  school  of  Winckler. 

1  In  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  p.  214,  note  1,  he  says: 
"Jesus  .  .  .  seems  originally  to  have  had  a  dove  for  a  mother,  as  the  bap- 
tism in  the  Jordan  was,  according  to  some,  the  act  of  the  birth  of  the  Saviour; 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  descended  on  him  in  fire  and  flame  [ !  ]  in  the 
form  of  a  dove,  was  represented  in  certain  Gnostic  sects  as  the  mother  of 
Jesus."  The  real  explanation  here  is  that  certain  Gnostic  sects  adapted 
the  story — with  fanciful  additions — to  their  own  theosophical  speculations. 


THE  BAPTISM  125 

us  light."  Here  God  is  expressly  separated  from  the 
light,  which  is  merely  manifested  by  him,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Shekinah. 

Again,  and  especially  in  Isaiah  60  : 1,  3,  19,  and  20, 
we  find  light  used  figuratively  of  God  and  his  revela- 
tion of  himself.  We  cannot  be  surprised,  therefore,  that 
the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  should  describe  Jesus, 
whom  he  regards  as  a  special  manifestation  of  God,  as 
"the  true  light."  Neither  can  we  wonder  that  it  should 
be  recorded  that  Jesus  had  spoken  of  John,  who  "pre- 
pared the  way  before  him,"  as  "the  lamp  that  burneth 
and  shineth,"  and  thereby  dispelled  the  mists  of  prej- 
udice and  error.  It  is  no  doubt  possible  to  force  these 
and  similar  expressions  into  supports  for  the  hypothesis 
which  would  make  Jesus  and  John  coequal  half-yearly 
phases,  or  aspects,  of  the  ascending  or  declining  sun. 
But  this  is  not  their  original  and  simpler  signification. 
We  may,  therefore,  follow  here  the  philosophical  maxim 
and  adopt  the  simpler  and  nearer  explanation  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  more  recondite  and  remote. 

(2)  As  regards  the  births  of  Jesus  and  John,1  modern 
research  has  practically  shown  that  these  events  cannot 
have  represented  solstitial  solar  phenomena,  as  main- 
tained by  Drews  and  his  school.  There  is  very  good  rea- 
son, as  we  have  seen,  for  believing  that  Jesus  was  born 
in  the  month  of  October;  in  that  case,  John  must  have 
been  born  in  the  preceding  April  (Luke  1  :  36).  These 
dates  also  do  not  coincide  with  the  equinoxes.  The  rea- 
sonable conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  the  events  in  ques- 
tion never  represented  an  "  historisation "  of  either  solar 

1  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  thinks  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  1900,  p.  257) 
that  "  the  late  Christian  myth  of  the  synchronous  ( ! )  birth  of  the  Christ's 
cousin  John  the  Baptist  is  reasonably  to  be  traced  to  the  Buddhist  myth 
of  the  synchronous  birth  of  the  Buddha's  cousin  Ananda  (Bigandet's  Life 
of  Gaudama,  Triibner's  ed.,  I,  36)  rather  than  to  the  Krishnaite  motive  of 
Arjuna  or  Bala  Rama."  The  latter  is  probably  later  and  has  even  less 
likeness  to  the  Lucan  story. 


126    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

or  vegetal  phenomena.  In  any  case,  it  is  clear  that  the 
mere  fact  of  the  two  births  occurring  at  intervals  of  six 
months,  though  exceedingly  convenient  for  this  theory, 
is  a  very  slender  and  speculative  basis  to  build  upon, 
and  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  much  more  probable  that  it 
has  no  special  significance  whatever. 

(3)  John's  cloak  of  camel's-hair  cloth  and  his  leathern 
belt  are  stated  (Zech.  13  :  4)  to  have  been  the  regular 
garb  of  the  itinerant  prophet  or  religious  teacher  in  the 
East.  The  assumption  that  Elijah  (with  whom  John 
is  compared)  is  a  form  of  the  sun-god  transferred  to  his- 
tory is  once  more  convenient  but,  at  the  same  time, 
rests  upon  very  slender  evidence.  Indeed,  the  known 
facts  seem  directly  to  negative  such  a  supposition.  For 
the  name  Elijah,  i.  e.,  Elijjahu  0HJW)  =  "My  God  is 
Jahu  (Jahveh),"  tells  against  it.  In  the  story,  as  recorded 
in  the  book  of  Kings,  Elijah  acts  on  Jahveh's  behalf 
against  the  Sidonian  Baal,  who  was  probably  a  solar 
member  of  the  Ba'alim  group  rather  than  one  of  the 
Canaanitish  gods  of  fertility.  It  is  true  that  Jahveh 
was  once  regarded  by  a  few  German  scholars  as  a  fire- 
god  (Daumer,  Der  Feuer-und  Moloch-dienst,  pp.  18-22; 
Ghillany,  Die  Menschenopfer,  pp.  278-298;  cf.  also  Kue- 
nen,  Tiibinger  Theol.  Jahrb.,  1842,  p.  473)  and  therefore 
might  be  regarded  as  representing  the  sun,  the  central 
fire  of  the  solar  system.  But  this  view  of  his  nature  has 
not  found  general  acceptance.  It  is  more  in  accord- 
ance with  known  fact  to  assert  that  Jahveh  was  said 
often  to  manifest  his  presence  by  means  of  fire,  as  at 
Sinai  and  Horeb.  In  the  latter  case,  however,  we  are 
expressly  told  by  the  chronicler  that  "Jahveh  was  not  in 
the  fire."  Neither  has  Elijah's  name  the  least  etymo- 
logical affinity,  as  Drews  seems  to  maintain,  with  Helios, 
Heljas,  and  Ilia,  though  its  shortened  form  Elias  has  a 
superficial  resemblance  to  these  words.  Helios  ("HXto? 
and  'HeXio?)  is  connected  by  Curtius  (Gr.  Etym.,  612) 


THE  BAPTISM  127 

with  the  Aryan  root  US,  the  original  form  being  av(a)4- 
Xio?.  The  v  then  either  fell  out  altogether  (as  in  the 
common  Greek  form  aeXtos)  or  hardened  itself  into  /3 
(as  in  Cretan  a/SeXto?).  And  its  meaning  is  the  "  burn- 
ing one." 

Bearing  all  these  and  similar  facts  in  mind,  it  is  dim- 
cult  to  maintain  the  solar  character  of  either  John  or 
Elias.  Still  more  outrageous  are  such  derivations  and 
statements  as  the  following:  "Elijah  (Eli-scha)  and 
Jeho-scha  (Joshua,  Jesus)  agree  even  in  their  names  [!], 
so  that  on  this  ground  alone  it  would  not  have  been 
strange  if  the  prophet  of  the  Old  Testament  had  served 
as  a  prototype  of  his  evangelical  namesake"  (see  Matt. 
9:11/.;  15  :  iff.,  n  and  20;  28  :  18).  (The  Christ  Myth, 
P-  238.) 

(4)  The  identification  of  John  with  Ea  or  Aa  (Ae)  is 
in  the  highest  degree  precarious,  especially  if  John  is 
considered  to  be  a  form  of  the  sun-god.  Ea  was  one  of 
the  great  triad  of  Sumerian  deities,  Anna  (Anu),  Enlil 
(Bel),  and  Enki  (Ea),  who  were  respectively  the  gods  of 
heaven,  earth,  and  the  abyss  of  waters  beneath  the  earth. 
Ea  is  said  to  have  emerged  daily  in  a  fish  form  (or  clad 
in  a  garb  of  fish-skins)  from  the  waters  of  the  Persian 
Gulf,  in  order  to  teach  the  early  inhabitants  of  Babylonia 
the  arts  of  civilisation.  The  Chaldean  priest  Berossus, 
who  flourished  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  calls 
this  god,  in  his  Greek  narrative,  Cannes  (Xlawgs),  or 
Iannes  (TaW?;?). 

Now,  'IwiwTp  ("John")  is  the  Hellenistic  Greek  form 
of  the  Hebrew,  j^rrt'1  (a  shorter  form  of  JjnfrP,  Jehohanan), 
which  means  "Jahveh  (Jeho)  is  gracious"  (not  "pleas- 
ing to  God").  This  word  is  undoubtedly  quite  different, 
both  in  meaning  and  etymology,  to  Ea,  which  Doctor 
Pinches  thinks  (Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Religion,  p.  51) 
may  mean,  in  the  form  Aa,  "waters,"  or,  if  read  Ea, 
"house  of  water."    Indeed,  in  any  case,  Jahveh  is  a  god  of 


128    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

heaven,  while  Ea  rules  over  the  abyss,  which  is  connected 
with  the  waters  of  the  sea.  There  is,  therefore,  no  rela- 
tion here  except  the  accidental  similarity  in  the  Greek 
names  Johannes  and  Cannes,  which,  of  course,  proves 
nothing. 

Doctor  Eisler,  in  a  learned  and  instructive  article  on 
"John-Jonah-Oannes"  {The  Quest,  April,  191 2,  pp.  474- 
495),  shows  that  in  two  places  the  MSS.  would  allow  us 
to  read  'Icodvvr}*;  instead  of  'flaw???,  and  he  regards  the 
former  word  as  "a  possible  rendering "  of  the  form  Ea- 
khan  ("Ea  the  fish"),  which  was  believed  by  Lenormant 
to  be  the  original  form  of  Berossus's  enigmatical  Greek 
word.  This,  however — whether  it  be  the  case  or  not — 
does  not  lend  any  support  to  Drews's  mythical  theory. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  very  problematical  whether 
Lenormant  was  right  in  his  conjecture,  and,  in  the  second, 
a  (later)  assimilation  by  copyists  of  'Haw?;?  and  'latdwry: 
would  almost  certainly  take  place  occasionally,  for  the 
latter  form,  being  a  common  name  in  Hellenistic  Greek, 
would  be  better  known  to  many  scribes. 

In  like  manner,  the  attempt  to  identify  Jonah  (n^\ 
'lavas,  "a  dove") — a  name  which  Robertson  Smith 
thought  (Jour.  Phil.,  IX,  85)  was  connected  with  totem- 
ism — with  'flawy?  or  'IwawTj?  (or  both)  is  probably  ren- 
dered invalid  by  the  difference  in  derivation  and  mean- 
ing. Jonah,  Cheyne  thinks,  is  possibly  due  to  a  corrup- 
tion from  ]nnn,  a  word  which  we  find  in  JWl*,  "Jahveh 
gives";  but  the  whole  subject  is  extremely  obscure,  and 
where  little  is  known  it  is  dangerous  to  theorise  dogmat- 
ically. 

Furthermore,  the  characters  and  functions  of  these 
three  beings — whether  they  be  historical  or  mythical — 
appear  to  be  quite  separate  and  distinct,  and  the  alleged 
identities  seem,  for  the  most  part,  to  be  merely  due  to  a 
play  upon  similarly  sounding  names.  Professor  Drews's 
further  supposition  that  Cannes   (or  Ea)   was  perhaps 


THE  BAPTISM  129 

originally  Aquarius,  "as  this  constellation  is  depicted  as 
a  fish-man,"  seems  to  rest  upon  one  of  the  many  wild 
theories  of  Creuzer,  whose  fanciful  hypotheses  were  se- 
verely criticised  by  Lobeck  in  his  Aglaophamus.  The  sign 
Aquarius  was  represented  in  Babylonian  zodiacal  sym- 
bolism by  the  god  Ramman,  crowned  with  a  tiara  and 
pouring  water  from  a  vase,  much  as  it  is  depicted  at  the 
present  time.  More  frequently,  however,  the  vase  and 
water  alone  were  used.  The  eleventh  month  of  the  year, 
with  which  the  sign  was  associated,  was  known  at  Baby- 
lon as  that  of  "want  and  rain,"  hence  the  water  and  jar, 
and  (sometimes)  the  figure  of  Ramman,  the  atmospheric 
god  of  rain  and  storms. 

(5)  The  festival  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  is  celebrated 
in  the  Western  church  on  the  24th  of  June,  but  in  the 
Eastern  church  it  is  held  on  January  7.  It  was  prob- 
ably not  observed  at  all  anywhere  before  300  A.  D., 
since  it  is  not  mentioned  earlier  than  Maximus,  Bishop 
of  Turin  (400  A.  D.),  and  in  several  homilies  of  St.  Au- 
gustine. The  date  (24th  of  June)  was  probably  chosen 
by  the  Western  church  when  the  birthday  of  Christ  was 
officially  fixed  by  Pope  Julius  I  (in  354  A.  D.)  on  De- 
cember 25,  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  the  pagan  festival 
of  the  birth  of  the  sun-god,  observed  annually  at  the 
time  of  the  winter  solstice. 

(6)  It  is  quite  natural  that  the  newly  baptised  Chris- 
tians should  be  popularly  termed  "little  fishes"  {pisci- 
culi),  seeing  that  they  were  actually  brought  up  out  of 
the  water  at  baptism.  Such  a  ceremony  would  inevit- 
ably suggest  the  analogy  of  fishing  to  every  witness  of 
the  scene. 

Professor  Drews,  however,  is  in  error  in  regarding  the 
piscina  as  the  name  of  the  baptismal  font.  The  piscina 
is  the  basin-like  cavity  in  the  wall  (generally)  found  near 
the  altar,  in  which  the  priest  performed  the  ablutions 
after  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist. 


130    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

(7)  But  it  now  becomes  necessary  to  identify  Cannes 
with  the  sun.  From  being  the  god  of  the  abyss  and 
the  waters  (super-  as  well  as  subterranean),  he  must  be 
identified  with  the  god  of  heaven.  This  is  cleverly  man- 
aged by  means  of  the  argument  that  Cannes  "indicates 
the  solstices''  and  thereby  " divides  the  year"  into  two 
equal  parts,  just  as  the  sun  does  by  ascending  and  de- 
scending the  ecliptic.  But  where  is  the  proof  that  Cannes 
was  even  thus  used  or  recognised  as  a  " year-divider"? 
Certainly  he  was  said  to  have  instructed  mankind;  but 
this  item  of  knowledge  does  not  seem  to  have  been  in- 
cluded among  the  "arts"  of  life.  We  doubt  very  much 
whether  Ea  was  ever  regarded  by  the  Babylonians  in 
any  such  capacity.  Their  time-measurers  were  the  sun 
and  moon,  and,  though  no  doubt  they  would  observe  the 
various  constellations  and  stars,  which  appeared,  disap- 
peared, and  reappeared  at  fixed  intervals,  the  sun  and 
moon  were  practically  their  sole  (and  sufficient)  guides 
in  these  matters. 

There  is  no  evidence  either  to  show  that  Ea  ever  en- 
tered the  "myth-group  of  Joshua,  Jason,  and  Jesus," 
whose  alleged  connexion  with  the  sun  also  in  each  case 
still  awaits  proof. 

(8)  The  next  identification  is  that  of  John  with  the 
constellation  Orion — "near  which  the  sun  is  at  the  vernal 
equinox."  This  is  even  more  fanciful  than  the  preced- 
ing identifications.  The  sun,  it  is  true,  two  thousand 
years  ago,  was  rather  near  Orion  at  the  vernal  equinox. 
And  the  latter  constellation  certainly  "stands  with  one 
foot  in  the  heavenly  Eridanus;  but  how  Professor  Drews 
makes  out  that  he  seems  to  draw  water  from  it  with  the 
right  hand,  at  the  same  time  blessing  with  the  left,"1  it 
would  be  extremely  difficult  to  say.  Really,  he  is  gener- 
ally supposed  to  be  holding  in  his  left  hand  the  charac- 
teristic lion's  skin,  perhaps  as  a  kind  of   shield,  while 

1  This  should  be  "right,"  as  it  is  viewed  from  the  interior  of  a  sphere. 


THE  BAPTISM  131 

with  his  right  he  brandishes  the  club  and  threatens  the 
bull,  who  is  charging  down  upon  him.  Furthermore, 
there  is  no  question  of  a  " blessing,"  which,  if  given  with 
the  left  hand,  would  have  been  regarded  as  of  very  sinis- 
ter effect. 

To  this  may  be  added  the  fact  that  the  true  reading 
in  John  i  :  28  is  not  Brjdafiapa  ("house  of  the  ford")  but 
Brjdavia  (" Bethany"),  as  shown  by  Westcott  and  Hort 
(cf.  Judges  7  :  24).  The  reading  "Betharaba"  is  due  to 
a  conjecture  of  Origen,  who  could  rind  no  traces  of  any 
place  named  Bethany  " beyond"  Jordan  in  his  day. 
Orion,  again,  like  the  Baptist,  certainly  has  a  "belt,"  but 
there  is  no  reference  in  the  leathern  girdle  of  the  lat- 
ter to  the  three  belt  stars  of  the  former;  and  to  see  in 
the  "figures"  (nearly  all  animals!)  of  the  constellations 
round  about  Orion  any  expression  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Babylonian  gods  at  the  vernal  equinox  is  to  let  the  im- 
agination run  to  an  excess  of  riot.  Moreover,  as  we 
have  pointed  out,  all  this  occurs  in  the  zodiac,  not  at  the 
vernal  equinox,  but  at  the  summer  solstice. 

(9)  Lastly,  we  have  to  consider  the  use  which  Pro- 
fessor Drews  makes  of  the  "dove."  It  does  not  seem 
certain  that  the  root  of  the  Greek  Aphrodite  is  to  be 
found  in  the  "Chaldaic"  word  Phereda  (or  Pheredet). 
The  common  derivation  is,  of  course,  from  a$/?o?,  "foam': 
(Liddell  and  Scott,  Gr.  Lex.,  s.  v.).  The  goddess  was  said 
by  the  Greeks  to  be  Aphrogeneia,  "foam-born,"  '  and 
in  a  moral  sense  she  was  the  patroness  of  light  love, 
though  there  are  (?  earlier)  indications  of  a  chaster  view. 

But  even  if  it  be  so,  that  fact  by  no  means  establishes 
his  case.  The  cult  of  the  dove  was,  it  is  true,  connected 
with  the  worship  of  the  great  mother-goddess  all  through 

1  See  Hesiod,  Theog.,  187-206.  It  would  seem  probable,  however,  that 
her  common  by-name  of  worship,  Ovpavla  ("the  heavenly  one"),  is  an 
older  term,  which  would  connect  her  ultimately  with  the  Semitic  Astarte 
(IStar). 


132   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Asia  Minor,  except  amongst  the  Jews,  with  whom  that 
bird  had  only  a  partially  sacrosanct  and  symbolical  char- 
acter. Its  gentle  and  affectionate  disposition  was  sug- 
gestive of  those  endearing  qualities  in  human  nature  and 
even  in  the  nature  of  God.  The  connexion  of  the  dove 
with  the  Virgin  Mary  is  merely  a  conceit  of  the  artists 
of  the  Renaissance  period,  who  drew  their  inspiration 
and  concepts  largely  from  pagan  sources;  for  the  evan- 
gelists are  careful,  as  we  have  seen,  to  regard  the  Virgin 
Mary  purely  as  a  woman. 

Finally,  we  may  conclude  with  a  "  parallel "  (and 
"origin")  of  the  baptism  which  has  been  found  in  India. 
Professor  Seydel  tells  us  (Das  Evangelium  von  Jesu,  etc., 
1882,  S.  155  and  156)  that,  according  to  the  Rgya  tcher 
rol  pa,1  while  the  future  Buddha  was  bathing,  "  thousands 
of  the  sons  of  the  gods,  wishing  to  render  offerings  to  the 
Bodhisat,  strewed  divine  aloes  and  sandal  powder  and 
celestial  essences  and  flowers  of  all  colours  over  the  wa- 
ter, so  that,  in  this  moment,  the  great  river  Nairanjana 
flowed  on  full  of  divine  perfumes  and  flowers. " 

It  would  be,  indeed,  difficult  to  meet  with  a  more  im- 
possible "parallel"  than  this;  the  two  stories  are  abso- 
lutely and  completely  dissimilar,  and  neither  suggests  or 
implies  the  other. 

1  The  Tibetan  recension  of  the  Lalita  vistdra. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   TEMPTATION 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus 

It  will  be  fitting  to  commence  our  study  of  the  temp- 
tation with  the  view  of  it  which  was  taken  by  "the 
father  of  modern  mythical  criticism,"  D.  F.  Strauss. 
His  explanation  of  the  matter,  which  at  least  has  the 
merits  of  sanity  and  moderation,  takes  the  following 
form  (Leben  Jesu,  1835,  English  translation,  II,  sec.  54, 
pp.  84-87). 

The  first  temptation  of  Jesus  in  both  of  the  fuller  syn- 
optic accounts  was,  he  notes,  that  of  hunger.  This  was 
predetermined  for  the  early  Christian  imagination  by 
two  facts  well  known  to  them.  "The  people  of  Israel 
had  been  particularly  tried  by  hunger  in  the  desert." 
And,  "in  the  same  way,  among  the  different  tempta- 
tions to  which,  according  to  the  rabbis,  Abraham  was 
exposed,  hunger  is  enumerated."  There  are,  however, 
he  admits,  many  other  examples  of  voluntary  abstinence 
from  food  in  the  Old  Testament,  so  that  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  why  the  example  of  Israel,  or  even  of  Moses,  should 
be  so  suggestive  to  the  early  Christian  mind.  "But," 
Strauss  continues,  "one  temptation  was  not  sufficient; 
according  to  the  rabbis,  Abraham  was  subjected  to  ten." 
This  number,  he  thinks,  was  too  many  for  a  dramatic 
exposition  such  as  we  have  in  the  two  longer  Gospel  rec- 
ords. A  smaller  number  must  be  selected  if  a  real  effect 
were  to  be  produced.  And,  if  so,  that  number  would 
surely  be  the  sacred  number  three.  That  number,  in- 
deed, frequently  recurs  in  various  connexions  in  the 
Gospels:  thus,  three  times  does  Jesus  withdraw  to  pray 

133 


134   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

in  Gethsemane;  three  times  did  Peter  deny  his  Master; 
and  three  times  did  Jesus  test  the  love  which  Peter  bore 
towards  him. 

Again,  this  sacred  number  reappears  "in  the  rabbinical 
passage  where  the  devil  personally  tempts  Abraham;  the 
patriarch  endures  three  assaults";1  the  parallel  is  still 
further  heightened  and  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the 
attacks  and  repulses  are  accompanied  in  every  case  by 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament. 

The  second  temptation,  in  the  Matthasan  order,  that 
Jesus  should  throw  himself  from  a  pinnacle  of  the  tem- 
ple, Strauss  says,  "appears  suddenly,  and  the  choice 
seems  fortuitous  and  arbitrary."  But  this,  again,  is  to 
be  explained  in  a  similar  way;  "it  is  borrowed  from  the 
conduct  of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  desert  (Deut.  6  :  16; 
Num.  21  :  4  Jf.),  the  people  tempted  the  Lord." 

The  third  temptation,  "that  of  worshipping  the  devil," 
Strauss  admits,  is  not  manifestly  got  from  any  definite 
Old  Testament  instance.  He  remarks,  however,  that 
one  of  the  sins  into  which  the  Israelites  fell  in  the  desert 
was  idolatry  (I  Cor.  io  :  7).  This,  he  adds,  was  "at- 
tributed to  the  suggestion  of  Satan;  and  later  Jews  re- 
garded idolatry  as  the  worship  of  the  devil." 

It  may  be  remarked  here  that  Strauss  is  not  very 
happy  in  his  "parallel"  for  the  last  temptation.  Israel 
did  fall  into  idolatry;  but  this  fact  seems  to  have  been 
put  down,  at  least  by  the  earlier  Israelites  themselves, 
to  their  natural  "stiff-neckedness"  rather  than  to  the 
wiles  of  a  personal  arch-tempter,  which  was  a  later  con- 
ception altogether.  Even  in  the  post-exilic  book  of  Job 
Satan  is  one  of  the  servants  of  Jahveh,  not  a  seducer  to 
sin  in  antagonism  to  God,  and  the  worship  of  the  devil 

1  Strauss  does  consider  the  question  of  the  date  of  the  rabbinical  stories, 
which  are  undoubtedly  post-Christian !  For  late  rabbinical  parallels  of 
Satan  tempting  Abraham,  Moses,  and  Israel,  see  Gforer,  Jahrhundert  d. 
Heils.,  part  2,  pp.  379^".    Cf.  also  the  temptations  of  Adam  and  Job. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS  135 

was  unknown  amongst  the  Jews  both  before  and  after 
the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon. 

Finally,  Strauss  thinks  that  the  ministry  of  angels, 
after  the  temptation  was  over,  recorded  by  Matthew  and 
Mark,  has  its  type  in  and  was  suggested  by  the  angel 
who  brought  food  to  Elijah  after  his  long  fast  (I  Kings 
19  :  5  and  6),  helped  out,  he  further  supposes,  by  the  fact 
that  the  manna  of  the  wilderness  was  called  angels'  food 
(Psalm  78  :  25;  cf.  Wisd.  16  :  20)  and  would  suggest  it- 
self to  the  Christian  narrator  as  suitable  in  such  a  case. 

It  is  quite  true  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  servants 
and  messengers  of  God  are  represented  as  fasting  as  well 
as  often  being  severely  tested  by  trials  of  various  kinds 
during  the  discharge  of  their  appointed  missions  and 
duties.  But  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  that  such  a 
view  of  the  Messiah  who  was  expected  by  the  Jews  had 
ever  prevailed  amongst  the  latter  people.  In  Isaiah  53 
and  in  Psalm  22  we  read  of  the  trials  and  sufferings  of 
the  "  Servant  of  Jahveh";  but  whether  any  ^-Christian 
Jews  ever  applied  these  pictures  to  the  Messianic  life  is 
more  than  doubtful.1  It  is  clear  that  the  Messianic  con- 
cepts of  the  Jews,  before  the  time  of  Christ,  were  em- 
bodied in  the  picture  of  a  victorious  and  successful  tem- 
poral Prince,  or  Deliverer,  who  should  free  the  nation 
from  their  bondage  and  punish  all  the  foes  of  Israel. 
The  notes  of  suffering  and  trial  of  a  passive  kind,  as  tests 
of  fitness  for  the  office,  are  conspicuously  absent  in  the 
Messianic  literature.  There  seems  to  be,  therefore,  no 
probability  even  that  the  contemporary  biographers  of 
Jesus  should  deliberately  insert  into  their  narratives  a 
story  setting  forth  a  series  of  grave  disciplinary  trials  as 
having  been  undergone  by  Jesus  before  entering  upon 
his  Messianic  career  among  men. 

These  difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  explana- 
tion offered  by  Strauss  of  the  genesis  of  the  temptation- 

1  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Messiah,"  sec.  9. 


136    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

myth  have  evidently  been  felt  by  succeeding  mythicists, 
for  we  find  that  the  derivation  of  it  from  Old  Testament 
analogies  has  been  practically  abandoned  by  them.  In 
its  stead  we  have  now  offered  to  us  a  succession  of  pagan 
parallels  which,  it  is  supposed,  suggested  the  idea  and, 
perhaps,  even  some  of  the  detailed  matter  in  the  narra- 
tives. This  is  the  view  taken,  for  example,  by  Mr.  J.  M. 
Robertson  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  1900,  pp.  343-356). 
"The  temptation  of  the  God,"  he  says,  "is  a  myth  of  a 
specifically  Oriental  stamp";  but,  he  adds,  it  is  "not  to 
be  found  in  that  form  in  Hellenistic  mythology  before 
the  rise  of  Christism.  The  latter  myth,  however,  turns 
out  to  be  at  bottom  only  a  variant  of  the  former,  differ- 
ent as  the  stories  are;  and  the  proof  is  reached  through 
certain  Hellenic  myths  of  which  the  origin  has  not  hith- 
erto been  traced." 

The  Christian  form  of  the  temptation-story  is,  he 
thinks,  a  fairly  close  analogue  of  the  temptation  of  the 
Buddha;  and  it  has  a  remoter  parallel  in  the  temptation 
of  Zarathustra.1  But,  at  the  same  time,  he  holds  that 
"there  are  decisive  reasons  for  concluding  that  the  Chris- 
tian story  was  evolved  on  another  line."  The  first  clew 
to  its  origin  he  finds  in  the  detail  of  the  exceeding  high 
mountain  of  the  First  and  Third  Gospels,  which  has  a 
"marked  parallel  in  a  minor  Greek  myth."  2  This  turns 
out  to  be  contained  in  a  story  of  Ennius  preserved  by 
Lactantius  (Div.  Inst.,  I,  11),  where  Pan  is  said  to  lead 
Jupiter  to  the  mountain  called  the  "Pillar  of  Heaven"; 

1  These  temptations  have  been  traced  by  M.  Darmsteter  (Ormuzd  et 
Ahriman,  pp.  195-203)  to  the  account  of  the  cows  of  Indra,  which,  when 
stolen  by  the  Panis  (evil  demons),  the  dog  Sarama  (Indra's  messenger)  is 
sent  to  bring  back  again  (see  Rig-Veda,  X,  108).  A  far-fetched  derivation, 
it  would  seem. 

2  It  has  more  marked  parallels  in  Semitic  myth  (cf.  the  Bab.  "mountain 
of  the  gods");  also  in  Hebrew  prophecy  and  Jewish  and  Christian  apocalyp- 
tic. See  Ezek.  28  :  16;  40  :  2;  Rev.  21  :  10,  with  Herm.,  SimiL,  IX,  1, 
1,  etc.;  also  Apoc.  Bar.  76  :8.  And,  indeed,  transport  (in  body  or  spirit 
merely)  to  a  hilltop  is  a  marked  peculiarity  of  Jewish  apocalyptic. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS  137 

this  hill  Jupiter  ascended  after  offering  a  sacrifice,  and 
" looked  up  to  heaven,  as  we  now  call  it."  This  myth, 
Mr.  Robertson  thinks,  "  taken  as  a  starting-point,"  would 
suffice,  "when  represented  either  dramatically  or  in  art, 
to  give  the  Christists  the  basis  for  their  story." 

Further,  Pan,  he  believes,  since  he  was  furnished  with 
horns  and  hoofs  and  a  tail,  "  represents  the  devil  as 
conceived  by  Christians  from  time  immemorial."  And 
"Satan  showing  Jesus  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world, 
and  asking  to  be  worshipped,  is  thus  merely  an  ethical 
adaptation  of  the  Greek  story"1  (!).  And  then  follows 
a  passage  which  expresses  so  characteristically  Mr. 
Robertson's  line  of  thought  and  argument  that  we  will 
transcribe  it  in  full  so  as  to  avoid  all  risk  of  misrepre- 
senting him:  "Any  representation  of  that  [scene]  would 
show  the  young  god  [Jupiter]  standing  by  the  demon 
[Pan]  and  the  altar  on  the  mountain  top;  and  to  a  Chris- 
tian eye  this  could  only  mean  that  the  devil  was  asking 
to  be  worshipped  in  return  for  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth 
to  which  he  was  pointing;2  though,  for  a  pagan,  Pan 
was  in  his  natural  place  as  the  god  of  mountains  (Ho- 
meric Hymn  to  Pan).  The  oddest  aspect  of  the  Christian 
story  is  the  naif  recognition  of  Satan's  complete  domin- 
ion over  the  earth,  another  of  the  many  illustrations  of 
the  perpetual  lapse  of  Semitic  and  other  ancient  mono- 
theism into  dualism.  But,  as  such  an  extreme  conception 
of  the  power  of  Satan  is  not  normally  present  in  the 
Gospels,  the  episode  in  question  is  the  more  likely  to  have 
been  fortuitously  introduced"  3 

Limits  of  space  will  prevent  us  from  making  more  than 
a  brief  reference  to  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Robertson's 
imaginative  and  interesting  sketch  of  early  Christian  de- 
velopment as  applied  to  the  temptation-narratives. 

1  Italics  ours. 

2  In  the  story  he  is  not  said  to  be  "pointing"  at  anything! 
8  Italics  ours. 


138   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

He  further  suggests,  however,  that  there  is  also  a  link 
here  with  the  zodiacal  astrology  of  the  period.  In  this 
Jesus  would  naturally  be  associated  at  the  outset  of  his 
career  with  the  sign  of  Capricorn,  which  "'  leads  the  sun 
from  the  lower  places  (ab  inferis  partibus),'  and,  in  virtue 
of  the  goat  nature,  proceeds  always  'from  low  places  to 
the  highest  rocks'  (Macrobius,  Sat.,  I,  21,  end)."  With 
Capricorn,  too,  Pan  "the  goat-god"  was  primarily  asso- 
ciated through  his  goat  legs,  and  is  further  directly  asso- 
ciated in  the  myth,  where  he  assists  Jupiter  in  his  fight 
with  the  Titans.  He  also  works  out  an  imaginative  con- 
nexion between  Satan  and  the  Hebrew  demon  Azazel, 
said  to  be  "identified"  with  the  goat  (in  Lev.  16  :  8, 
A.  V.,  and  R.  V.,  margin),  and  a  variant  of  the  Babylo- 
nian goat-god  Azaga-suga,  which  in  turn  goes  back  to  the 
Akkadian  sacred  goat,  which  was  at  once  a  god  and  the 
Capricorn  of  the  zodiac. 

Any  criticism  of  this  imaginative  hypothesis  of  Mr. 
Robertson  must,  primarily  at  least,  take  the  form  of 
pointing  out  the  numerous  assumptions  and  inaccura- 
cies which  it  contains  throughout.  When  these  have 
been  marked  off  and  removed  it  would  be  time  enough 
to  see  what  remains  of  solid  value. 

And,  first  of  all,  Mr.  Robertson's  idea  of  "the  devil  as 
conceived  by  Christians  from  time  immemorial"  makes  us 
wonder  greatly  with  what  type  of  Christians  his  lot  has 
been  cast !  It  is  true  that  among  the  crude  religious  con- 
cepts of  ignorant  and  illiterate  folk,  and  especially  during 
the  darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Satan  was  largely  figured 
in  the  popular  imagination  as  furnished  with  horns  and 
also  hoofs  and  a  tail.  It  would  be  difficult,  though,  to 
establish  this  concept  as  being  that  of,  at  least,  the  early 
Christian  writers.  Moreover,  there  is  no  identity  what- 
ever between  the  demon  Azazel  and  the  Hebrew  Satan} 

1  Mr.  Robertson  here  quite  misunderstands  his  references.  Azazel  is  not 
"identified  with  the  goat"  (see  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Azazel,"  sec.  1).    Two  goats 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  JESUS  139 

Few  people  either  would  see  the  slightest  parallel  be- 
tween Jupiter  " looking  up  to  heaven"  (even  with  Pan  at 
his  side)  and  "  Satan  showing  Jesus  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world  and  asking  to  be  worshipped,"  unless  Mr. 
Robertson  here  supposes  that  Pan  was  seeking  the  adora- 
tion of  Jupiter.  There  is  no  fasting  either  in  the  heathen 
story,  and,  above  all,  no  temptation.  And  how  the 
Christian  narrative  can,  by  any  stretch  of  imagination, 
be  regarded  as  an  ethical  adaptation  of  the  myth  passes 
all  comprehension.  Myths  were  notoriously  wwethical 
and  personal  morals  were  wholly  negligible  factors  in 
all  pagan  religions. 

Furthermore,  the  Christian  story  nowhere  recognises 
"Satan's  complete  dominion  over  the  earth."  Such  a 
view  prevails  neither  in  the  Gospels  generally  (as  Mr. 
Robertson  practically  admits)  nor  in  this  story.  The 
Christian  view  is,  and  ever  has  been,  that  Satan,  once  a 
spiritual  servant  and  agent  of  God,  has  lapsed  into  a  po- 
sition of  revolt  against  his  authority,  and  that  God,  in 
his  wisdom,  and  for  some  sufficient  and  good  reason — 
perhaps  the  discipline  of  mankind — is  permitting  this, 
for  a  time,  in  the  sphere  of  this  world. 

Neither  is  there  in  the  evangelist's  story  any  illustra- 
tion of  a  lapse  from  monotheism  into  dualism.  The  lat- 
ter admits  two  co-ordinate  and  almost  eternal  powers, 
one  good  and  the  other  evil.  This  is  exemplified  only  in 
one  Aryan  religion,  the  faith  founded  by  Zarathustra. 
Semitic  monotheistic  religious  systems  are  wholly  exempt 
from  it,  as  witness  the  case  of  Mohammedanism  to-day. 
Mr.  Robertson's  pagan  Satan  (Pan),  too,  is  here  a  power 
not  adverse  to,  but  in  accord  with,  Jupiter — a  concept 


were  set  apart,  one  for  Jahveh,  one  for  Azazel,  who  was  a  fallen  angel,  one 
of  the  sons  of  Elohim,  evil  in  character,  but  not  altogether  unfriendly  to 
man.  See  Enoch  6:6/.;  8  :  i,  and  especially  io  :  4-8;  13  : 1.  The  reader 
may  also  be  referred  to  a  very  illuminative  article  on  "The  Scapegoat  in 
Bab.  Rel.,"  Expository  Times,  October,  191 2,  pp.  9-13. 


140  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

wholly  unlike  that  of  both  the  Hebrew  and  Christian 
Satan. 

In  short,  it  is  only  by  drawing  a  caricature  of  the 
Christian  system,  and  adopting  the  popular  and  cruder 
presentations  of  that  religion,  that  he  can  make  out  a 
case  at  all.  His  other  mythical  and  astrological  clews  we 
cannot  deal  with  here  in  detail.  We  would,  however, 
point  out,  before  concluding,  that  in  all  probability  the 
exceeding  high  mountain  was  not  a  part  of,  at  least,  the 
original  tradition  as  recorded  by  Mark.  In  Mark  Jesus 
was  merely  in  the  "wilderness,"  that  is,  one  of  the  broken 
and  stony  deserts  to  the  south  or  east  of  Judaea  (the  re- 
sort of  ascetics  in  all  ages),  " forty  days  tempted  {i.e., 
tried)  of  Satan."  Even  in  the  narrative  of  Matthew  only 
one  of  the  trials  takes  place  on  a  mountain;  the  last 
temptation  takes  place  upon  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple.1 
A  mountain  has,  indeed,  but  little,  if  anything,  to  do 
with  the  story;  for,  as  we  will  see  presently,  Jesus  being 
taken  to  either  mountain  top  or  pinnacle  of  the  temple  is, 
without  doubt,  merely  a  symbolic  expression.  He  was 
— in  propria  persona — in  the  wilderness  throughout  it  all. 

And  now  we  may  turn  to  Professor  Drews.  Robert- 
son's elaborate  hypothesis  is  practically  passed  over  by 
him.  He  merely  says  {The  Christ  Myth,  English  trans- 
lation, p.  236):  "The  account  of  the  temptation  of  Jesus 
sounds  very  much  like  the  temptation  of  Buddha,  so  far 
as  it  is  not  derived  from  the  temptation  of  Zarathustra 
by  Ahriman,  or  the  temptation  of  Moses  by  the  devil, 

1 A  fragment  of  doubtful  source  and  connexion,  preserved  by  Origen 
(Comm.  in  Johan,  III,  63)  and  supposed  to  be  from  the  Gospel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  speaks  of  Jesus  being  conveyed  by  his  "mother,  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  to  the  mountain  Tabor.  Hilgenfeld  says  (Nov.  Test,  extra  Can. 
Recept.,  IV,  23)  that  this  passage  is  commonly  referred  to  the  Temptation, 
but  that  Baur  (Manichaisches  Religionssystem,  485)  rightly  assigns  it  to  the 
Transfiguration.  The  mountain,  in  any  case,  as  Cheyne  says,  was  later 
probably  supposed  to  be  the  old  mythical  earth's  centre,  or  navel  of  the 
Hebrew  paradise  (Ezek.  28  :  16,  etc.),  and  this,  he  thinks,  was  placed  by 
early  tradition  in  the  Jerahmeelite  Negeb  (cf.  Isaiah  28  :  16). 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  ZARATHUSTRA  141 

of  which  the  rabbis  told."  We  will,  therefore,  turn  to 
the  first  two  of  these  narratives  and  give  them  here  as 
fully  as  our  space-limits  will  admit. 

The  Temptation  of  Zarathustra 

In  the  temptation  of  Zarathustra1  the  scene  is  opened 
by  the  rush  from  the  regions  of  the  north2  of  Angra 
Mainyu,3  the  daeva  of  the  daevas,  who  orders  a  fiend4 
(drug)  to  destroy  Zarathustra.  But  the  attack  of  the 
daeva  was  repulsed  by  the  chanting  of  the  Ahuna  Vairya5 
by  Zarathustra,  and  the  fiend  returned  to  report  his  ill 
success. 

Meanwhile,  Zarathustra,  who  "saw  (all  this)  from 
within  his  soul"  (or,  in  modern  phraseology,  subcon- 
sciously) started  forward  swinging  large  stones  "as  big  as 
a  house,"  obtained  from  Ahura  Mazda,6  with  which  he 
threatens  Angra  Mainyu  and  the  daevas.  The  former 
begs  Zarathustra  not  to  harm  his  creatures,  and,  chang- 
ing his  tactics,  promises  him  a  "great  boon"  if  he  will 
renounce  the  "good  law  of  the  worshippers  of  Mazda"  (cf. 
Matt.  4:  8  and  9).  This  Zarathustra  emphatically  refuses 
to  do,  and  the  arch-fiend  then  asks  what  weapons  he  has 
that  will  avail  in  a  fight.  To  this  Zarathustra  replies 
that  his  weapons  are  the  haoma1  and  the  words  taught  by 

1  For  the  English  translation  of  the  full  text  of  this  narrative,  see  The 
Zend-Avesta,  Vendidad,  Fargad  XIX  {Sacred  Books  of  the  East),  by  Jas. 
Darmsteter,  pp.  204-207  and  217-219. 

2 1,  e.,  from  hell,  which  lies  in  the  north  (cf.  XIX,  2;  Yt.,  XXII,  25). 

3  The  "hostile"  or  destroying  spirit;  afterwards  contracted  to  Ahriman. 
In  the  Vedas  the  da£vas  are  good  spirits. 

4 This  fiend  is  said  to  have  propounded  "malignant  riddles,"  after  the 
manner  of  CEdipus  and  the  Sphinx. 

6  A  prayer  formula  considered  to  have  great  (magic)  power. 

'"Lord  all-wise,"  afterwards  contracted  to  Ormazd  (Ormuz)  =  the  good 
spirit. 

7  The  soma  of  the  Vedas,  an  intoxicating  drink  used  at  certain  sacrifices 
and  regarded  as  conveying  spiritual  inspiration  from  the  gods. 


142    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Mazda  (i.  e.,  the  sacred  magical  formula  for  compelling 
evil  spirits),  the  Ahuna  Vairya,  and  again  he  chants  this 
aloud. 

Then  Zarathustra  applies  to  Ahura  Mazda  for  a  reve- 
lation of  "the  law."  He  is  taught  how  the  fiend  may  be 
still  more  effectually  repelled,  how  the  creation  of  Mazda 
is  to  be  worshipped,  how  uncleanness  is  to  be  washed 
away,  and  what  becomes  of  the  soul  after  death.  The 
narrative  next  describes  the  rout  of  Angra  Mainyu  and 
his  host. 

Angra  Mainyu  next  tries  to  rally  his  daevas,  and  or- 
ders them  to  "gather  together  at  the  head  of  Arezura  "x 
for  a  fresh  attack.  Upon  which,  we  are  told,  the  "evil- 
doing  daevas"  run  away,  casting  the  evil  eye.  "Let  us 
gather  together,"  they  say,  "at  the  head  of  Arezura." 
But  they  refuse,  after  all,  to  attack  Zarathustra  again. 
"How  can  we  procure  his  death?"  they  urge  by  way  of 
remonstrance  with  their  leader.  "He  is  the  stroke  that 
fells  the  fiends;  he  is  a  counter-fiend;  he  is  a  drug  of  the 
drugs."  The  task  is  an  impossible  one;  and  so,  finally, 
"  they  rush  away,  the  wicked,  evil-doing  daevas,  into  the 
depths  of  the  dark,  horrid  world  of  hell,"  and  the  temp- 
tation of  the  holy  Zarathustra  is  at  an  end. 

The  Temptation  of  Gautama 

We  will  now  turn  to  the  corresponding  trial  of  Gau- 
tama,2 which  is  properly  prefaced  by  the  "Great  Re- 
nunciation." In  this  he  leaves  his  father's  palace,  and  a 
life  of  ease  and  pleasure,  and  rides  forth  into  the  world 
to  discover  the  great  secrets  of  all  being  and  happiness. 
His  father  had  ordered  the  city  gates  to  be  shut  against 
his  egress;  'but  the  angel  residing  at  the  gate  opened 
it."    At  the  very  moment  of  leaving  the  city,  however, 

1  The  gate  of  hell. 

2  For  the  complete  narrative  in  the  Niddnakathd,  see  Buddhist  Birth 
Stories,  by  T.  W.  Rhys  Davids,  pp.  83-84,  96-101,  and  106  jj. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  143 

Mara1  appeared  and  endeavoured  to  stay  the  Bodhisat. 
Standing  in  the  air  before  him,  he  exclaimed:  "Depart 
not,  0  my  lord !  In  seven  days  from  now  the  wheel  of 
empire  will  appear  and  will  make  you  sovereign  over 
the  four  continents  and  the  two  thousand  adjacent 
isles;  stop,  0  my  lord!"  (C/.  Matt.  4  :  8  and  9.)  The 
Bodhisat  informs  the  evil  spirit  that  he  does  not  desire 
sovereignty  over  the  world,  but  wishes  to  become  a 
Buddha,2  and  by  so  becoming  achieve  something  greater 
than  earthly  sovereignty;  he  will  thereby  "make  the  ten 
thousand  world  systems  shout  for  joy."  Thereupon  the 
fiend  resolves  to  follow  Gautama  and  watch  for  any 
thought  of  lust  or  anger  or  malice  in  his  heart;  and  so, 
the  account  proceeds,  he  followed,  "ever  watching  for 
some  slip  as  closely  as  a  shadow  which  never  leaves  its 
object." 

We  have  next  the  journey  to  the  Bo-tree  and  the  " temp- 
tation" thereunder  to  abandon  his  aspirations  to  Buddha- 
hood  and  complete  enlightenment,  of  which  the  following 
is  an  abstract: 

The  Bodhisat  seated  himself  with  his  back  to  the 
trunk  of  the  Bo-tree,3  and  resolved  never  to  move  from 
his  seat  there  until  he  had  attained  to  "complete  in- 
sight." Then,  we  are  told,  the  army  of  Mara  advanced 
against  him  in  due  order.  It  stretched  "twelve  leagues 
before  him,"  and  as  many  on  either  side,  while  behind 
him  it  reached  to  the  rocky  limits  of  the  world;  above 
him  it  was  nine  leagues  in  height,  and  the  sound  of  its 
war-cry  was  heard  twelve  leagues  away,  "like  the  sound 
of  a  great  earthquake."  At  the  head  of  this  host  rode 
"Mara  the  Angel,"  upon  an  elephant  two  hundred  and 

1  The  evil  spirit.  Sansc,  4~mri,  "to  cause  to  die,"  "to  kill."  Cf.  Hebrew, 
Satan,  "adversary." 

8  An  enlightened  person. 

3  The  older  Pali  texts  refer  to  Mara  as  the  adversary  of  the  Buddha  but 
are  silent  as  to  the  "great  temptation"  under  the  Bo-tree,  of  which  the 
later  legend,  as  we  have  it,  has  so  much  to  say. 


144    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

fifty  leagues  high.  And  he  had  "created  for  himself  a 
thousand  arms  and  seized  all  kinds  of  weapons."  With 
these  he  and  his  army  "went  on  to  overwhelm  the  great 
being."  On  the  other  hand,  the  good  angels  of  "the  ten 
thousand  world  systems,"  who  are  described  as  ranged 
on  the  side  of  the  Buddha,  are  said  to  have  been  mean- 
while speaking  his  praises;  and  their  King  Sakka  blew 
upon  his  great  trumpet,  which  was  one  hundred  and 
twenty  cubits  long  and  which  gave  forth  a  blast  that  re- 
sounded for  four  months.  But,  on  the  approach  of  Mara 
and  his  host,  they  all  pusillanimously  turned  and  fled, 
and  the  Buddha  was  left  alone.  i 

Thereupon  the  arch-fiend  and  his  satellites  commenced 
their  onset  from  behind  Gautama,  and  the  latter,  looking 
all  around  and  seeing  that  he  was  wholly  deserted  even 
by  the  "gods,"  reflected:  "No  father  is  here,  nor  mother, 
nor  any  other  relative  to  help  me.  But  those  Ten  Car- 
dinal virtues  have  long  been  to  me  as  retainers  fed  from 
my  store.  So,  making  the  virtues  my  shield,  I  must 
strike  this  host  with  the  sword  of  virtue  and  thus  over- 
whelm it.  And  so  he  sat  meditating  on  the  Ten  Perfec- 
tions." 

Then  Mara  began  his  attack  with  a  great  whirlwind 
from  all  the  four  corners  of  the  earth,  with  the  intent  to 
drive  away  Gautama  from  his  seat;  but  he  failed  to  do  so. 
The  whirlwind  was  succeeded  by  a  great  rain  from  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  immense  clouds,  and  the  great 
flood  thereby  caused  overtopped  the  trees  of  the  forest; 
but  it  was  unable  to  wet  even  the  robe  of  the  Buddha. 

After  this,  then,  followed  a  great  shower  of  rocks — 
"mighty  mountain  peaks  came  hurtling  through  the  air" 
upon  Gautama.  But  all  these  changed  into  bouquets 
of  heavenly  flowers  when  they  reached  the  Bo-tree. 
These,  again,  were  succeeded  by  volleys  of  deadly  weap- 
ons— swords,  spears,  and  arrows;  but  these,  likewise,  be- 
came flowers  when  they  struck  the  Buddha.    Storms  of 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  145 

red-hot  charcoal,  hot  ashes,  sand,  and  mud  next  came 
successively  " flaming  through  the  air";  but  they  fell 
at  the  Buddha's  feet  as  heavenly  perfume.  Finally, 
there  fell  upon  him  a  thick  darkness;  but  this  also  dis- 
appeared on  reaching  the  Bo-tree. 

Then  Mara,  mounting  upon  the  "  Mountain  Girded,"1 
ordered  Gautama  to  get  up  and  surrender  to  him  the 
seat  beneath  the  Bo-tree.  "  Get  up,  Siddhatta,  from  that 
seat!"  he  cried.  "It  is  meant  for  me!"  But  Gautama 
reminded  Mara  that  he  had  not  perfected  the  ten  car- 
dinal virtues;  he  had  not  sacrificed  himself  in  the  five 
great  acts  of  self-renunciation  and  the  salvation  of  the 
world  and  the  attainment  of  wisdom.  The  seat  did  not 
belong  to  him,  but  to  the  Buddha. 

Thereupon  Mara  threw  at  him  the  great  sceptre- 
javelin  which  he  carried;  but  this  became  a  garland  of 
flowers,  which  remained  as  a  canopy  over  him;  also  the 
fresh  masses  of  rock  hurled  by  the  host  became  bouquets 
at  his  feet,  though  the  angels  had  now  given  him  up  for 
lost. 

The  tempter's  next  move  was  to  accuse  Gautama  of 
not  having  given  alms.  But  the  latter,  raising  his  right 
hand  from  beneath  his  robe,  called  upon  the  earth  to 
bear  him  witness  of  "the  seven-hundred-fold  great  gift" 
he  had  made  in  his  former  birth  as  Wessantara;  and  the 
earth  gave  reply:   "I  am  witness  to  thee  of  that." 

And  then  the  great  elephant  of  Mara  fell  down  upon 
his  knees  when  he  realised  the  generosity  of  Wessantara; 
and  the  army  of  Mara  "fled  this  way  and  that  way,  so 
that  not  even  two  were  left  together;  throwing  off  their 
clothes  and  their  turbans,  they  fled  each  one  straight  on 
before  him.  But  the  heavenly  host,  when  they  saw  that 
the  army  of  Mara  had  fled,  cried  out:  "The  tempter  is 
overcome !  Siddhatta  the  prince  has  prevailed  !  Come, 
let  us  honour  the  victor,"  etc. 

1  The  name  of  Mara's  great  elephant. 


146   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  baffled  arch-fiend  now  changed  his  tactics,  and 
despatched  his  seductive  daughters,  among  whom  were 
Craving,  Discontent,  and  Lust,  to  try  gentler  meth- 
ods. But  their  charms  were  also  unavailing.  Gautama 
remained  calm  and  impassive,  and,  rebuking  them  for 
their  boldness,  forces  them  to  retire  discomfited  and  dis- 
graced.1 

Before  discussing  the  above  narratives,  we  may  briefly 
mention  here  another  " source' '  (and,  in  a  certain  sense, 
a  "parallel")  of  the  Biblical  temptation-story  which  has 
been  since  advanced  by  Professor  Jensen,  the  distin- 
guished Assyriologist.  This  is  drawn  from  the  Gilgamesh 
epic  of  Babylon,  which  is,  he  thinks,  the  basis  and  real 
original  source  of  the  whole  story  of  Jesus  as  related  in 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles.2 

In  this  myth  Eabani,  a  monster  specially  created  by 
the  goddess  Aruru,  is  held  by  Jensen  to  be  a  mythical 
"parallel"  of  Jesus,3  and  the  alleged  correspondences  to 
the  temptation-narrative  are  worked  out  by  him  as  fol- 
lows. Eab.ani,  after  visiting  Gilgamesh  at  the  city  of 
Erech,  flees  to  the  steppe.  In  like  manner,  after  his 
baptism,  Jesus  flees  into  the  wilderness.  Then  the  sun- 
god  (Shamash)  calls  from  heaven  to  Eabani  in  the  desert 
with  kind  words,  and  speaks  to  him  of  delicious  food, 
of  loaves  of  breaM,  and  of  his  feet  being  kissed  by  the 
kings  of  the  earth.  This  incident  is  supposed  to  appear 
in  the  Christian  "myth"  as  "the  devil  speaking  to  Jesus 
about  bread,  which  he  is  urged  to  make  from  stones," 

1  In  the  Khadirangara  Jdtaka  ("Birth  Stories"),  pp.  334_337,  there  is 
another  so-called  "temptation"  of  the  Bodhisat,  wherein  Mara  attempts 
to  put  a  stop  to  his  almsgiving  and  destroy  him.  After  this  failed  Mara 
went  away  to  the  place  where  he  dwelt,  and  the  Bodhisat,  "standing  on  the 
lotus  [flower],  preached  the  law  to  the  people  in  praise  of  charity  and  right- 
eousness, and  then  returned  to  his  house  surrounded  by  the  multitude." 

2  Moses,  Jesus,  Paulus :  drei  varianten  des  babylonischen  gottmenschen  Gil- 
gamesch.  (1909),  pp.  27-30. 

3  Other  prototypes  of  Jesus  in  this  myth  are  said  to  be  Xisuthros  and 
Gilgamesh  himself. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  147 

and  about  "  Jesus  ruling  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth 
if  he  would  kiss  the  devil's  feet."  Finally,  Eabani  re- 
turns from  the  steppe  to  Erech  and  lives  there  with  Gil- 
gamesh  once  more.  Similarly,  Jesus  returns  from  the 
wilderness  to  his  native  place. 

In  reviewing  the  temptation-narratives  of  both  Zara- 
thustra  and  the  Buddha,  the  first  thing  that  strikes  the 
reader  is  the  exaggerated  use  in  both  of  hyperbole  and 
symbolism.  To  treat  these  stories  as  being  ever  regarded 
by  any  one  as  historical,  in  our  Western  and  modern  sense 
of  the  term,  seems  to  the  present  writer  wholly  to  mis- 
understand their  entire  purport  and  meaning.  They 
are,  it  is  quite  evident,  highly,  if  not  wholly,  symbolic 
and  must  be  interpreted  from  that  point  of  view.  But, 
after  the  usual  Oriental  fashion,  the  symbolism  is  char- 
acterised by  exaggeration  of  the  grossest  and  most  ab- 
surd kind;  this,  however,  is  ever  the  Eastern  manner 
whenever  the  " supernatural"  is  in  question. 

Again,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  of  these  sto- 
ries, in  their  primitive  form  at  least,  are  older  than  the 
corresponding  Gospel  narratives  and  have  undergone 
considerable  development  and  elaboration.  The  Gos- 
pel stories,  on  the  other  hand,  are  moderate  in  their 
symboUsm,  and  even  prosaic  by  comparison,  and  if 
borrowed  from  these — even  as  regards  ideas — must  have 
undergone  much  pruning  and  toning  down.  That  they 
have  not  done  this,  however,  is  pretty  clear  from  the 
older  and  simpler  form  of  the  temptation-narrative  in 
Mark,  and  also  from  the  fact  that  myths  never  lose 
their  elaboration  by  passing  into  the  literature  of  other 
peoples,  though  they  often  change  the  modes  of  expres- 
sion. All  this  tells  strongly  against  any  theory  of  bor- 
rowing by  the  evangelists,  whether  of  the  details  or  of 
the  ideas  embodied  in  the  story.  Moreover,  there  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  only  one  temptation  which  they  have  in 
common  with  the  fuller  Gospel  narratives — that  of  the 


148   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

bribe  of  earthly  sovereignty.  Everything  else  is  wholly 
different,  and  even  that  temptation  differs  greatly  from 
the  one  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  In  the  Buddhist  story 
Gautama  is  to  have  a  world  empire  if  he  will  stay  at 
home  and  renounce  all  aspirations  to  enlightenment, 
while  Zarathustra  is  somewhat  vaguely  promised  a 
"great  boon"  if  he  will  abjure  the  "good  law  of  the  wor- 
shippers of  Mazda."  On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  is  offered 
the  sovereignty  of  the  world  if  he  will  "worship  Satan," 
which  we  may  take  to  mean,  aspire  to  an  earthly  and 
temporal.  Messianic  kingdom  such  as  the  Jews  dreamt 
of  instead  of  that  kingdom  which  was  not  of  this  world. 
The  physical  violence  offered  to  both  Zarathustra  and 
Gautama,  as  well  as  the  malignant  riddles  of  the  demon, 
together  with  all  the  exuberant  flights  of  fancy  found 
in  both  the  pagan  stories,  are  likewise  conspicuously 
absent  from  the  Gospels  and,  above  all,  from  the  chaste 
and  subdued  narrative  of  Mark. 

We  may,  therefore,  take  it  as  certain  that  there  has 
been  no  Zoroastrian  or  Buddhist  influence  directly  at 
work  in  the  composition  of  the  narratives  of  any  of  the 
evangelists.  That  the  spiritual  concepts  of  the  age  have 
coloured  the  fuller  presentments  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  more  than  probable;  such  a  colouration  would,  in  any 
circumstances,  be  unavoidable.  These  points  are  freely 
admitted  by  Doctor  Cheyne,  who  says  most  distinctly 
(Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Temptation  of  Jesus,"  sec.  14)  that  the 
mythic  elements  in  the  temptation  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
traced  to  imitations  of  either  of  the  two  parallel  stories, 
and  adds:  "So  far  as  we  know  as  yet,  it  is  only  in  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels  (150-700  A.  D.)  that  Buddhist  in- 
fluence can  be  traced."  This  is  also  the  view  of  the  great 
majority  of  competent  authorities  on  Buddhism.  Pro- 
fessor Oldenberg  says  emphatically  (Buddha  sein  Leben, 
seine  Lehre,  seine  Gemeinde,  S.  118):  "Influences  of  the 
Buddhist  tradition  on  the  Christian  are  not  to  be  thought 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  149 

of."  It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  cases  of  such  expert 
opinion.1 

Comment  upon  such  a  scheme  of  "parallels"  as  those 
drawn  from  the  Gilgamesh  epic  seems  really  unneces- 
sary even  when  they  are  advanced  by  so  brilliant  a 
scholar  as  Doctor  Jensen.  Still  we  may,  perhaps,  point 
out  that  the  so-called  "temptation"  is  no  temptation 
at  all.  It  is  merely  an  assurance  of  Shamash  the  sun- 
god  that  his  wants  will  be  provided  for.  Eabani  had 
grown  restive  under  the  restraints  of  civilisation  in 
Erech,  and  the  sun-god  practically  asks  him  why  he 
longed  for  his  former  wild  life  amongst  the  animals  of 
the  desert.  Had  not  Gilgamesh  supplied  him  with  food 
and  clothing,  and  would  he  not  give  him  an  easy  seat  on 
his  right  hand  and  oblige  the  kings  of  the  earth  to  kiss 
his  feet?  And  then  we  read  that  at  daybreak  " the  words 
of  Shamash  the  mighty  loosed  the  bands  of  Eabani  and 
his  furious  heart  came  to  rest."  The  whole  argument  is, 
however,  in  reality  absurd;  and  it  is  difficult  even  to 
take  Professor  Jensen  seriously. 

But,  it  may  be  justly  observed,  all  this  is  so  far  mere 
destructive  criticism;  what  can  we  put  in  its  place? 
The  Biblical  story  is  evidently  not  history  in  the  modern 
sense;  what,  then,  is  its  origin  and  meaning?  This  is  a 
fair  question,  and  we  will  endeavour  to  answer  it  frankly. 

The  story  of  the  temptation  of  Jesus  is,  we  believe,  a 
symbolic  narrative  expressive  of  one  of  those  psychical 
experiences  which  affect  the  innermost  core  of  our  spirit- 
ual being.2    It  was  customary  in  the  East  for  all  founders 

1  For  an  able  and  modern  article  on  supposed  Buddhist  parallels  and  in- 
fluences, see  M.  L.  de  la  Vallee  Poussin's  "History  of  the  Religions  of  India 
in  Its  Bearings  on  Christian  Apologetics"  (Revue  des  Sciences  Philosophiques 
et  Theologiques,  July,  191 2). 

2C/.  with  this  scene  "The  Transfiguration,"  chap.  8.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  experiences  ascribed  to  Zarathustra  and  Gautama,  assuming  them 
to  have  been  historical  characters,  as  seems  more  than  probable.  In  their 
case,  however,  the  descriptive  narratives  have  been  so  loaded  with  extrav- 
agant hyperbole  and  exaggerated  symbolism  as  to  place  them  beyond  all 


150    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

and  reformers  of  religion,  as  well  as  prophets,  to  retire 
for  a  while  to  the  broken  and  desolate  country  in  their 
respective  neighbourhoods  and  there,  by  means  of  a 
course  of  fasting  and  severe  mental  introspection,  to  pre- 
pare themselves  for  the  mission  which  they  felt  called 
upon  to  undertake.  Here,  in  places  firmly  believed  to 
be  the  special  haunts  of  spirits,  chiefly  evil  or  mischiev- 
ous,1 as  well  as  wild  beasts  {cf.  Mark  i  :  13),  inward 
doubts  and  questions,  and  visions,  often  hallucinatory 
in  character,  as  a  rule,  speedily  supervened.  These  ex- 
periences, whether  hallucinatory  or  veridical,  in  a  spirit- 
ual sense  were  sometimes  recorded  in  highly  symbolical 
language  for  the  edification  and  warning  of  mankind. 
Doctor  Cheyne  thinks  that  all  temptation-stories  in 
general  originated  in  the  mythical  conflict  between  the 
light-god  and  the  storm-spirit.  This  is  no  doubt  true 
in  a  sense;  but  we  must  remember  that  the  light-god 
and  the  storm-spirit  themselves  were  but  symbols  of 
spiritual  powers  by  whom  men  were  ultimately  con- 
trolled and  to  whom  obedience  or  resistance  was  due. 
For  there  can  be  no  temptation  to  reject  the  good  and 
choose  the  evil,  even  in  the  most  rudimentary  sense  of 
the  term,  unless  there  is  a  spiritual  and  ethical  note  in 
the  experience. 

Now,  Jesus  must,  at  the  outset  of  his  earthly  career, 
have  been  beset  by  three  great  temptations,  affecting, 
respectively,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  to  employ  the  con- 
ventional divisions  in  general  use.2    He  was  tempted,  no 

comparison  with  those  of  the  evangelists.  Binet-Sangle  finds  (La  folie  de 
Jesus,  pp.  356  ff.)  in  the  narrative  of  the  Temptation  seven  hallucinations, 
two  purely  optical  and  five  which  were  at  once  optical  and  auditives  ver- 
bales.  He  attributes  them  to  the  combined  influence  of  excitement,  night, 
loneliness,  and  abstinence.    See  chap.  6,  p.  114,  note  2. 

1  Such  as,  especially,  the  Hebrew,  anvf  ("violent  ones"),  and  on^tf 
("hairy  ones,"  Isaiah  13  :  21;  34  :  14,  etc.);  cf.  the  Arab.,  Jinns,  Assyr., 
Utukkus,  etc.,  and  the  Greek,  datfwpes,  5ain6vut  ("demons"),  etc. 

2  The  order  of  Luke  is  preferable  as  giving  them  in  the  natural  sequence 
— from  lowest  to  highest. 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  151 

doubt,  to  choose  the  life  of  greater  bodily  ease  and  com- 
fort instead  of  that  path  wherein  he  was  often  an  hun- 
gered and  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head.  Further,  there 
was  the  temptation  to  accept  the  national  ideal  of  a  suc- 
cessful earthly  monarch  and  to  rule  over  a  greater  king- 
dom than  that  of  Solomon.  And,  lastly,  he  would  be 
tempted  to  mistrust  the  good-will  and  support  of  his 
Father  in  heaven,  especially  in  hours  of  bodily  weak- 
ness and  depression.  Ought  he  not,  therefore,  to  test 
(" tempt")  this  in  some  way  at  the  outset,  in  order  to 
assure  himself  that  the  mission  was  in  truth  his  Father's 
will  and  no  mere  dream  of  his  own  mind?  Through  all 
these  successive  temptations  he  must  have  passed  one 
by  one;  and  they  would  doubtless  be  related  by  him 
afterwards  to  at  least  the  innermost  group  of  his  disciples. 
And  these  trials  of  faith  were  recorded  more  Orientali, 
in  the  language  of  symbol  and  hyperbole,  by  the  two 
later  synoptists.  As  a  modern  scholar  very  truly  writes: 
"He  was  made  like  to  his  brethren;  he  was  touched  with 
the  feelings  of  our  infirmities;  he  was  able  to  sympathise 
(SviAvd/jLevov  <TvijL7ra0r}Tcu) ,  for  he  was  tempted  in  all  re- 
spects like  us.  In  the  Gospel  as  it  is  handed  down  to  us 
the  Temptation  of  Christ  is  summed  up  in  three  episodes 
set  at  the  beginning  of  the  story,  and  told  in  a  symbolic 
form,  which  may  or  may  not  have  been  given  to  them  by 
Jesus  himself."  l 

Finally,  there  remains  for  our  consideration  one  more 
point  which  is  frequently  regarded  as  of  vital  impor- 
tance in  such  questions  as  these.  Had  these  spiritual 
experiences,  as  described,  the  objective  reality  which 
the  narratives  seem  to  imply?  Above  all,  was  there  an 
actual  arch-spirit  of  evil  in  person  testing  the  fitness  of 
the  future  Messiah?  Or  were  they,  severally  and  col- 
lectively, merely  the  questionings  and  strivings  of  that 

1  Mr.  T.  R.  Glover,  The  Conflict  of  Religions  in  the  Early  Roman  Empire, 
p.  127. 


152  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

mysterious  superconsciousness  which  ever  lies  at  the 
back  of  all  our  normal  mental  activities  and  which 
seems  as  yet  to  be  called  into  activity  only  by  extraor- 
dinary exigencies  in  the  life  of  man?  The  present  writer 
will  endeavour,  in  compliance  with  his  promise,  to  deal 
frankly  with  the  reader  upon  this  point  also. 

The  question  asked  is  a  difficult  if  not  an  impossible 
one  to  answer,  even  partially,  at  the  present  time.  To 
put  it  in  other  words,  it  is  practically  to  inquire  how, 
in  all  such  cases,  the  merely  subjective  and  hallucinatory 
is  to  be  separated  and  distinguished  from  the  spiritually 
objective  and  veridical.  This  important  problem  of  the 
future  is  now  engaging  the  serious  attention  of  psychical 
research.  Modern  orthodox  psychology  has,  it  is  true, 
discouraged  such  inquiries  and  in  some  cases  even  denied 
the  objectivity  and  independent  reality  of  spiritual  phe- 
nomena no  less  than  the  existence  of  the  indwelling  soul 
which  experiences  them;1  but  at  the  same  time  it  has 
certainly  not  established  the  entire  subjectivity  of  either. 
Neither  can  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  an  un- 
friendly spirit,  or  spirits,  be  proved  or  disproved  to-day. 
At  the  same  time  the  diabolical  character  of  much  of  the 
evil  in  the  world  seems  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  theory 
of  neuroses.  External  influences  of  a  demoniacal  nature 
are,  it  is  true,  out  of  fashion  just  now;  but  they  might 
any  day  be  discovered  to  have  some  elements  of  fact  in 
them.2  The  true  attitude  for  the  moment,  therefore,  is 
one  of  suspended  judgment. 

But  even  if  it  be  ultimately  established  that  all  the 

1  E.  g.,  "Souls  are  out  of  fashion"  (William  James  at  Oxford  in  19 10). 
See,  however,  the  more  recent  work,  Body  and  Mind,  by  Professor  William 
McDougall,  of  Oxford,  who  reaffirms,  from  the  scientific  standpoint,  the 
highly  probable  objective  reality  of  the  spiritual  element  in  man  and  its 
experiences.  The  reader  is  also  referred  to  the  researches  found  in  the 
modern  works  on  psychical  research. 

2  See  Daemon  Possession  in  China  and  Allied  Themes,  by  Doctor  J.  L.  Nae- 
vius  (1896),  and  Daemonic  Possession,  by  Doctor  W.  M.  Alexander  (1902). 


THE  TEMPTATION  OF  GAUTAMA  153 

temptations  and  sins  incident  to  man  are  the  outcome  of 
subjective  stirrings  and  impulses  of  a  lower  type,  even 
if  man  were  proved  to  be  "his  own  devil,"  the  spiritual 
value  of  each  experience  would  still  remain.  The  lower 
self,  with  all  its  tendencies  and  strivings  to  what  is  base 
and  earthly,  would  still  need  to  be  conquered  by  the 
higher  self,  with  all  its  nobler  aims  and  aspirations. 
After  all,  it  matters  but  little  whether  evil  thoughts  and 
temptations  are  injected  ah  extra  by  a  personal  power  or 
engendered  by  internal  causes  and  movements.  The  re- 
sult in  either  case  is  the  same.  The  higher  self,  strength- 
ened and  sustained  by  powers  and  energies  of  spiritual 
origin,  and  emanating  from  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life 
and  energy,  must  ever  grapple  with  and  strive  against 
the  lower  self,  until  the  tempter  is  finally  overcome  and 
man  enters  upon  that  spiritual  inheritance  where,  we  are 
assured,  there  is  no  more  temptation  and  from  whence 
sin  and  pain  and  sorrow  will  have  for  ever  fled  away. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   TRANSFIGURATION 

We  may  once  more  conveniently  open  our  discussion 
of  this  event  in  the  life  of  Jesus  with  a  short  summary 
of  the  view  of  it  taken  by  D.  F.  Strauss,  which  may  be 
quoted  as  a  fair  sample  of  what  we  have  termed  the 
" common-sense"  type  of  mythical  criticism.  He  com- 
ments upon  it  {Life  of  Jesus,  III,  pp.  247  and  248)  as 
follows: 

"To  comprehend  how  such  a  narrative  could  be  formed 
by  the  legend,  we  should  examine,  in  the  first  place,  the 
peculiarity  to  the  essence  of  which  the  other  peculiari- 
ties most  readily  attach  themselves,  viz.,  the  brilliance 
which  rendered  the  face  of  Jesus  like  the  sun  and  the 
bright  light  with  which  even  his  garments  were  invested. 
For  the  Orientals,  and  in  particular  for  the  Hebrews,  the 
fine  and  majestic  is  almost  always  connected  with  some- 
thing luminous.  Solomon  in  his  Songs  compares  his  be- 
loved to  the  morning,  to  the  noon,  to  the  sun  (6  :  10); 
pious  men  sustained  by  the  divine  blessing  are  compared 
to  the  sun  in  his  glory  (Judges  5  :  31);  and  especially 
the  future  life  of  the  blessed  is  compared  to  the  bril- 
liance of  the  firmament  (Daniel  13  :  3;  Matt.  13  :  43). 
In  consequence,  not  only  does  God  appear  in  a  burst  of 
light,  and  the  angels  with  luminous  countenances  and 
shining  garments  (Psalm  50  :  2  and  3;  Daniel  7:9;  10  :  5 
and  6;  Luke  24  :  4;  Rev.  1  :  13-16),  but  also  the  pious 
individuals  of  Jewish  antiquity.  .  .  . 

"In  the  same  way  the  Jewish  posterior  legend  endowed 

154 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  155 

distinguished  rabbins  with  supernatural  light  in  certain 
moments  of  exaltation.  .  .  . 

"The  fact  is,"  he  adds,  somewhat  inconsequently,  "it 
was  expected  that  the  Messiah  would  have  a  bright  and 
shining  countenance  like  that  of  Moses,  or  even  surpass- 
ing that  in  splendour,  and  a  Jewish  work,  which  takes 
no  notice  of  this  history  of  the  transfiguration,  draws 
an  argument  altogether  in  the  spirit  of  the  Jews  when 
he  [the  author]  affirms  that  Jesus  could  not  have  been 
the  Messiah  inasmuch  as  his  face  had  not  the  bright- 
ness of  the  face  of  Moses  much  less  any  superior  bright- 
ness. The  first  Christians  must  have  heard  like  objec- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  Jews  or  they  must  have  made 
them  to  themselves;  the  necessary  consequence  of  which 
would  be,  in  the  most  ancient  church,  a  tendency  to  re- 
produce in  the  life  of  Jesus  this  trait  from  the  life  of 
Moses,  to  exaggerate  it  even  in  a  certain  respect,  and  to 
attribute  to  Jesus,  were  it  only  for  a  short  space  of  time, 
instead  of  a  shining  face,  which  might  have  been  covered 
with  a  cloth,  a  brilliance  which  was  spread  even  over  his 
garments. " 

This  argument  is  entirely  in  line  with  the  method  of 
Strauss  all  throughout  his  critique  of  the  Gospels.  Ev- 
erything was  anticipated  by  the  Jews  and — later  on — 
supplied  to  order  by  the  early  Christians.  And  the  his- 
torical Jesus  was  a  mere  peg  upon  which  to  hang  these 
anticipations.  But  Strauss  concludes  with  the  practical 
question:  "If  .  .  .  the  splendour  with  which  Jesus  was 
surrounded  was  an  accidental  optical  phenomenon,  and 
if  the  two  apparitions  were  the  images  of  a  dream,  or 
unknown  individuals,  what  becomes  of  the  meaning  of 
the  adventure?  What  purpose  could  be  answered  in 
preserving  in  the  first  Christian  association  so  useless 
an  anecdote,  one  so  destitute  of  meaning,  founded  upon 
superstition  and  a  vulgar  illusion?" 

This  criticism  of  Strauss,  though  expressed  with  some 


156    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

reserve  and  a  modicum  of  real  insight  of  a  commonplace 
sort,  is,  nevertheless,  in  itself  not  of  a  very  illuminative 
character  and,  moreover,  ends  with  the  trite  argument  that 
because  he  can  see  no  purpose  served  by  the  anecdote 
none  can  possibly  exist — a  great  as  well  as  a  gratuitous 
assumption  in  any  case.  It  is  clear  that  the  evange- 
lists were  persuaded  that  the  ultimate  sources  of  their 
information  (probably  one  or  more  of  the  disciples,  who 
had  been  present  on  the  occasion)  were  sufficiently  trust- 
worthy to  exclude  the  possibility  of  a  mere  accidental 
optical  phenomenon,  the  images  of  a  dream,  or  even  the 
suggestion  of  unknown  individuals  who,  whether  by  de- 
sign or  accident,  were  present  upon  the  mountain  at 
the  time.  And  the  very  obvious  purpose  of  the  evan- 
gelists in  preserving  this  story  (assuming  for  a  moment 
its  historicity)  was  that  they  might  show  how  the  three 
chosen  disciples  had  clearly  and  fully  unfolded  to  them 
the  true  Messianic  character  and  divine  nature  of  their 
Master.  The  remainder  of  his  criticism  we  will  leave 
until  we  discuss  the  narrative  itself  in  greater  detail  at 
the  end  of  the  present  chapter. 

We  may  now  turn  to  later  mythical  criticism,  and  in 
connexion  with  the  mythic  sources  and  parallels  of  this 
narrative  we  may  note  the  following  story,  which  has 
been  termed  the  "Transfiguration  of  the  Buddha"  and 
placed  under  suspicion  as  a  source  of  our  narratives. 
Shortly  before  the  death  of  Gautama,  we  are  told  in  the 
Mahdparinibbdna  Sutta,  IV,  sees.  47-50  (Sacred  Books 
of  the  East,  vol.  XI,  pp.  80  and  81),  that  "The  venerable 
Ananda  placed  a  pair  of  robes  of  cloth  of  gold,  burnished 
and  ready  for  wear,  on  the  body  of  the  Blessed  One,  and 
when  it  was  so  placed  on  the  body  of  the  Blessed  One 
it  appeared  to  have  lost  its  splendour.  Then  the  vener- 
able Ananda  said  to  the  Blessed  One:  'How  wonderful  a 
thing  it  is,  lord,  and  how  marvellous,  that  the  colour  of 
the  skin  of  the  Blessed  One  should  be  so  clear,  so  exceed- 
ing bright!     For  when  I  placed  even  this  pair  of  robes 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  157 

of  burnished  cloth  of  gold  on  the  body  of  the  Blessed  One, 
lo !  it  seemed  as  if  they  had  lost  their  splendour.'  " 

Thereupon  the  Buddha  explained  the  mystery:  "On 
the  night,  Ananda,  on  which  a  Tathdgata1  attains  to  the 
supreme  and  perfect  insight,  and  on  the  night  in  which 
he  passes  finally  away,  in  that  utter  passing  away  which 
leaves  nothing  whatever  remaining,  on  these  occasions 
the  colour  of  the  skin  of  the  Tathagata  becomes  clear 
and  exceeding  bright." 

There  is  some  resemblance  here,  but  only  of  a  very 
general  character,  which  certainly  does  not  suggest  bor- 
rowing of  any  kind  either  way.  And,  in  any  case,  that 
hypothesis  opens  up  a  number  of  complex  and  difficult 
problems  both  here  and  elsewhere,  each  of  which  would 
require  a  settlement  before  any  definite  conclusion  could 
be  reached;  e.  g.:  (i)  Does  the  Sutta,  in  which  this  story  is 
preserved,  date,  in  its  present  form,  from  before  the  time 
of  Christ?2  (2)  Can  any  literary  borrowing  between 
Palestine  and  India  before  that  period  be  shown  to  be 
even  probable?  (3)  If  borrowing  of  idea  there  be  here, 
could  not  the  early  Christian  compilers  have  got  the 
idea  more  readily  and  directly  from  the  Old  Testament, 
as  Strauss  thought?  After  making  every  allowance,  the 
theory  of  a  Buddhist  source  seems,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
highly  improbable;  and  undoubtedly  similar  ideas  and 
stories  frequently  spring  up  simultaneously  in  different 
countries  and  places,  so  there  is  probably  no  connexion 
whatever  between  the  two  narratives.  This  is  also  the 
view  of  Lester,  who  says  (The  Historic  Jesus,  191 2):  "The 

1  De  Bunsen  thinks  (Angel  Messiah  of  Buddhists,  Essenes,  and  Christians, 
1880)  that  this  =  the  Jewish  Messianic  title  Habbd  (6  'Epx^evos),  "the 
Coming  One."  But  it  is  a  derivative  from  the  Sansc.,  tathd,  "so,"  and 
either  gata,  "gone,"  or  agata,  "come,"  and  accordingly  means  "so  gone"  or 
"so  come."  Burnouf  (Hist,  du  Buddh.  Ind.,  pp.  75  and  76)  says  that  the 
Tibetan  scholar  Csoma  thought  it  meant  "the  One  who  has  gone  through 
his  career  like  his  predecessors"  (the  previous  Buddhas). 

2  Rhys  Davids  thinks  that  the  Suttanta  date  from  about  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.  C.  But  Indian  dates  are  proverbially  very  uncertain.  And  there 
is  the  question  of  interpolation. 


158    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

details  for  the  story  were  abundantly  supplied  in  the 
legend  of  Moses  (Ex.  25).  The  six  days,  the  three  fa- 
voured friends,  the  light  of  the  divine  glory  were  all  to 
be  found  in  that  ancient  tale;  while  the  whiteness  of  the 
garments,  surpassing  the  brightness  of  the  sun  and  the 
whiteness  of  snow,  came  from  the  Apocalypse  of  Enoch 
(see  The  Secrets  of  Enoch  22  :  8-10)." 

We  will  now  turn  to  Professor  Drews,  who,  as  we 
might  expect,  links  up  the  event  with  ancient  astral- 
mythic  ideas  that  had  been  long  current  in  other  parts 
of  Asia  Minor  and,  further,  parallels  the  details  of  the 
story  with  those  of  the  baptism.  On  the  basis  of  the 
theory  that  the  synoptists  represent  the  public  career 
of  Jesus  as  occupying  only  one  year  (instead  of  three,  as 
commonly  supposed) — a  precarious  hypothesis — he  pro- 
ceeds as  follows  [The  Christ  Myth,  English  translation,  pp. 
126  and  127]:  "As  at  the  baptism,  so  here,  too,  Jesus  was 
proclaimed  by  a  heavenly  voice  as  the  Son  or  beloved 
of  God,  or  rather  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  the  latter  is 
in  Hebrew  of  feminine  gender,1  it  consequently  appears 
that  in  this  passage  we  have  before  us  a  parallel  to  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan.  The  incident  is  gener- 
ally looked  upon  as  though  by  it  was  emphasised  the 
higher  significance  of  Jesus  in  comparison  with  the  two 
chief  representatives  of  the  old  order  and  as  though 
Jesus  was  extolled  before  Moses  and  Elijah  by  the  trans- 
figuration. Here,  too,  however,  the  sun-god  Helios  is 
obviously  concealed  beneath  the  form  of  the  Israelite 
Elijah.  On  this  account  Christianity  changed  the  old 
places  of  worship  of  Zeus  and  Helios  [?  Zeus-Herakles] 
upon  eminences  into  chapels  of  Elijah;  and  Moses  is  no 
other  than  the  moon-god,2  the  Men  of  Asia  Minor.    And 

xThe  Hebrew  word  for  spirit  is  generally  feminine.  But  the  Hebrews 
had  no  feminine  principle  in  the  godhead. 

2  Moses,  however  (p.  89,  note),  "is  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  offshoot  of 
Jahwe  and  Tammuz"  1 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  159 

he  has  been  introduced  into  the  story  because  the  divine 
lawgivers  in  almost  all  mythologies  are  the  same  as  the 
moon,  the  measurer  of  time  and  regulator  of  all  that 
happens  (cf.  Manu  among  the  Indians,  Minos  among 
the  Greeks,  Men  [Min]  among  the  Egyptians),"  adding 
in  a  note  (p.  127):  "The  horns  (crescent)  which  he  also 
shares  with  Jahwe,  as  the  Syrian  Hadah  shows,  recalls 
to  mind  the  moon-nature  of  Moses." 

And,  lastly,  he  sums  up  as  follows  (p.  127):  "Accord- 
ingly, we  have  before  us  in  the  story  of  the  transfigura- 
tion in  the  Gospels  only  another  view  of  the  story  of  the 
birth  of  the  light-god,  or  fire-god,  such  as  lies  at  the 
root  of  the  story  of  the  baptism  of  the  Christian  Saviour. 
And  with  the  thought  of  the  new  birth  of  the  Saviour 
is  associated  that  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  and  particu- 
larly that  of  the  fire  baptism  of  which  the  sun  partakes 
at  the  height  of  its  power." 

It  will  be  convenient  to  discuss  first  of  all  Doctor 
Drews's  derivations. 

"Moses  is,  as  regards  his  name  [Vina,  mo],  the  ' water- 
drawer'"  (p.  127,  note).  Now,  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
name  appears  as  TOD  (Mosheh),  and,  if  this  be  the  cor- 
rect form,  its  meaning  would  be  "deliverer"  (l/ritfft, 
"to  draw  out,"  cf.  II  Sam.  22  :  17;  Psalm  18  :  17).  But 
this  view  is  open  to  doubt,  and  Lepsius  (Chronologie,  326) 
has  suggested  a  derivation  from  the  Egyptian  mes  (or 
mesu;  W.  H.  Muller  writes  it  mose),  meaning  child, 
which  occurs  as  a  name  by  itself  and  also  as  part  of  a 
theophorous  name  (e.  g.,  Thothmes,  etc.,  see  Enc.  Bib., 
art.  "Moses,"  sec.  2).  With  this  derivation  Doctor  Sayce 
agrees  {Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments,  pp.  64 
and  65),  and  Dillmann  holds  (Ex.-Lev.  16)  that  Moses 
(  =  Mesu)  was  the  original  name.  The  chief  objection 
to  this  theory,  that  the  Hebrews  would  not  have  ac- 
cepted a  name  for  their  hero  from  their  Egyptian  op- 
pressors, is  not  a  valid  one.    Moses  was  believed  by  the 


160    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

former  to  be  of  Hebrew  birth,  and  a  very  slight  change  in 
the  spelling  of  his  name  would  give  the  Hebraic  word 
for  "  deliverer/'  a  most  suitable  appellation  in  their  view. 
In  order  to  connect  Moses  with  the  Asiatic  moon-god, 
Drews  lays  great  stress  upon  "the  horns  (crescent), 
which  he  also  shares  with  Jahwe,  as  the  Syrian  Hadah 
shows"  (p.  127,  note) — another  very  dubious  support 
to  his  hypothesis.  Horns,  in  Eastern  countries,  were 
symbolical  of  power  and  were  commonly  an  adjunct 
to  the  head-dresses  of  gods  and  kings.  In  Ex.  34  :  29 
it  is  stated  in  the  Massoretic  text  that  when  Moses  came 
down  from  the  mount  his  face  "emitted  rays,"  "shone" 
(]*]£).  The  LXX,  in  the  Vatican  text,  reads  SeSofao-rat, 
"was  endowed  with  glory,"  "shone";  but  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate  we  find  cornuta  esset,  "was  horned."  This  re- 
sult is  attained  by  reading  pp  as  ppy,  instead  of  pfj, 
and  Jerome  states  that  Aquila,  in  his  version  of  the  LXX, 
followed  this  reading.1  Cheyne  thinks  that  this  reading, 
or  perhaps  the  idea  upon  which  it  is  based,  may  be  traced 
to  the  two  horns  of  Am(m)on  (Amun),  the  god  of  Thebes, 
which  Alexander  the  Great  affixed  to  the  effigy  of  him- 
self on  coins,  and  from  which  he  was  later  styled  "the 
two-horned  king"  in  the  Koran  (Sur.  18  :  85).  "The 
original  reading,"  he  thinks,  "must  have  been  not  ppT 
but  pi?"  (barak,  "lightened";  cf.  Phcen.,  bdrca),  and  he 
adds:  "It  would  be  going  too  far  off  to  compare  the  horns 
[crescent]  of  the  moon-god  Sin,  whose  emblem  was  a  crown 
or  mitre  adorned  with  horns"  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Horn"). 
That  Moses  represents  the  Semitic  moon-god  is  a  mere 
speculation  due  to  the  ingenuity  of  Winckler,  and  the 
alleged  affinity  of  his  name  to  Manu,  Minos  (so  pressed 
by  Drews),  is  probably  due  only  to  the  mere  alliteration 
in  the  words.  It  is  highly  probable,  indeed,  that  the 
name  Minos  is  only  a  variant  of  an  original  Manva,  i.  e., 

1  Gesenius,  in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon  (1833),  comments  thus:  "Ridicule  Aqu. 
et  Vulg.  cornuta  esset." 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  161 

"(the  being)  endowed  with  thinking,"  as  we  see  in  the 
Hindu  Manu  and  the  German  Mann.  In  any  case,  if 
Manu  and  Minos  are  astral  deities,  they  must  be  forms 
of  the  sun-god  and  not  connected  with  the  moon  at  all; 
for,  inter  alia,  the  wife  of  Minos  is  Pasiphae,  the  moon- 
goddess.  Amsu,  or  Min  (Men),  is  also  a  personification 
of  the  male  reproductive  powers  of  nature  and  was  iden- 
tified with  Pan  by  the  Greeks.  In  short,  we  have  here, 
in  Doctor  Drews's  book,  a  mere  mass  of  unverified  and 
loose  speculation  upon  which  no  sound  hypothesis  can 
be  raised. 

Again,  with  regard  to  Elijah,  surely  he  cannot  mean 
to  equate  Elijah1  (Elijahu)  with  Helios  and  (above  all) 
with  Jesus.2  Elijah  means  "Jah  is  my  God,"  while 
Helios  is  derived,  according  to  Peile  (Gk.  and  Lat.  Etym., 
p.  152),  from  i/us9  "to  burn,"  with  an  original  form 
av(<r)e\£o?,  aeXios,  with  Cretan  a/3e\io<;  (see  also  Curtius, 
Gr.  Etym.,  no.  162).3 

By  no  possible  process  can  we  legitimately  find  Helios 
concealed  beneath  the  form  of  the  Israelite  Elijah,  and 
no  sound  theory  of  identification  can  be  built  upon  the 
similarity  of  certain  forms  of  their  names  or  the  functions 
assigned  to  each  of  them. 

Lastly,  Drews's  view  that  the  transfiguration  repre- 
sents the  sun-god  undergoing  his  baptism  of  fire  at  the 
highest  and  turning-point  of  his  annual  career  is  dis- 
posed of  by  this  simple  fact  alone  that,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen  (chap.  4),  a  careful  examination  of  the  name 
Jesus,  and  of  the  circumstances  of  his  career,  shows  that 
he  was  not  in  any  sense  of  the  word  a  sun-god  at  all. 

1  Also  written  Helias  (IV  Esd.  7  :  30).  This  form  offers  a  great  temptation 
to  identify  the  name  with  Helios  (Helius)  the  sun  ! 

2  For  "Elijah  (Eli-scha)  and  Jeho-schua  (Joshua,  Jesus)  agrees  even  in 
their  names"!  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  238). 

3  From  this  Aryan  root  comes  the  old  Etruscan  solar-god  Usil,  "  the 
burning  one,"  identified  subsequently  by  the  Greeks  with  Apollo  (cf.  Ro- 
man, Sol).    But  Jahveh  was  almost  certainly  not  a  sun-god. 


162     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS ' 

We  will  now  turn  to  the  Greek  text  of  the  narratives 
of  this  event  and  see  what  light  a  careful  examination 
of  them  will  throw  upon  the  matter. 

In  describing  the  change  which  all  three  synoptists 
state  came  over  Jesus,  Mark  and  Matthew  use  exactly 
the  same  phrase — teal  /jLeTafiopcpayadr)  ejiirpoaOev  avr&v  ("and 
he  underwent  a  change  in  their  presence") — which,  no 
doubt,  in  each  case  points  to  a  quotation  from  a  com- 
mon source.  Luke,  however,  adopts  a  verbally  different 
phrase,  and  perhaps  describes  the  change  in  his  own 
words — iyeveTO  ...  to  e2So?  rod  TrpoaaiTrov  avrov  erepbv 
("the  form  [or  expression]  of  his  countenance  became 
different,"  or  "changed") — a  general  equivalent  of  the 
former  phrase.  All  three  also  note  that  this  change  ap- 
peared to  extend  to  the  clothing;  the  raiment  became 
white.  Now  the  verb  \iejap.op^>6o\xai  is  used  of  a  spiritual 
change  in  Romans  12:2,  and  also  in  II  Cor.  3  :  18,  with 
apparently  a  reference  to  this  scene,  for  a  comparison 
with  the  case  of  Moses  (Ex.  34  :  16)  is  instituted.  This 
event  seems  also  to  be  referred  to  in  II  Peter  1  :  16 
and  perhaps  in  John  1  :  14. 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  the  evangelists  here  are  trying 
to  describe  what  they  regard  rather  as  spiritual  phe- 
nomena than  as  physical.  Indeed,  Matthew  appears  to 
say  so  distinctly.  Jesus  afterwards  told  them,  he  adds, 
to  tell  the  vision  (opa/ial)  to  no  one.  No  doubt  opafia 
can  also  be  taken  to  mean  some  object  or  other  presented 
to  the  ordinary  normal  sight;  but  it  can  also,  and  does 
frequently,  mean  the  higher  vision  of  the  spiritual  na- 
ture, as  it  seems  to  do  in  this  case.2  And  herein  lies  the 
answer  to  the  chief  difficulty  felt  by  Strauss  and  prob- 

1  dirraa-la  is  the  regular  technical  word  for  immaterial  phenomena.  But 
this  cannot  be  pressed. 

2  Cf.  the  case  of  Stephen  (Acts  6  :  15),  where  Luke,  it  may  be  noted, 
again  avoids  the  word  fiera/jLopcpSo/xaL  and  compares  the  spiritualisation 
of  Stephen's  face  to  the  expression  of  an  "angel." 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  163 

ably  by  many  other  readers.  The  brilliance  which  he 
failed  to  understand,  and  mistook  for  a  physical  light,  is 
not  intended  to  be  taken  as  a  mere  physical  phenome- 
non. The  writers  are  endeavouring  to  describe  phenomena 
of  an  abnormal,  superphysical — a  spiritual — character  in 
terminology,  which  is  really  only  adapted  to  normal  and 
purely  physical  occurrences  (cf.  Acts  2  :  4,  etc.),  and 
therefore  must  fail  to  describe  them  adequately  owing  to 
the  insufficiency  of  language  itself. 

A  similar  criticism  will  apply  to  the  "voice"  (cjxuvr)), 
which  is  also  mentioned1  and  regarded  by  the  mythi- 
cists  as  a  further  mark  of  pseudo-historicity.  But  the 
subjective  character  of  such  voices,  as  regards  the  merely 
bodily  senses,  was  recognised  at  least  as  far  back  as  the 
fourth  century.  "What  is  meant,"  writes  Basil  the 
Great  (Horn,  in  Ps.  28,  "by  the  voice  of  the  Lord?  Are 
we  to  understand  thereby  a  disturbance  caused  in  the  air 
by  the  vocal  organs?  Is  it  not  rather  a  lively  image,  a 
clear  and  sensible  vision  imprinted  on  the  mind  of  those 
to  whom  God  wishes  to  communicate  his  thought,  a  vi- 
sion2 analogous  to  what  is  imprinted  on  the  mind  when 
we  dream." 

Now,  it  would  be  a  great  error  to  suppose  hastily,  as 
no  doubt  many  readers  will  do,  that  all  such  experiences 
as  these  may,  after  all,  be  referred  merely  to  the  imagi- 

1  Jensen  identifies  this  "voice"  (Moses,  Jesus,  Paulus)  with  the  voice 
of  the  invisible  Xisuthros,  who  calls  out  to  his  shipmates:  "You  are  to  be 
pious."    It  is  difficult,  we  repeat,  to  take  such  "parallels"  seriously. 

2  Schmiedel  lays  down  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Res.  and  Asc.  Nar.,"  sec.  34) 
the  psychological  antecedents  of  a  vision  (=  here  hallucination)  as  follows: 
(1)  a  high  degree  of  psychical  excitement;  (2)  all  the  elements  which  are 
requisite  for  the  formation  of  a  visionary  image,  whether  it  be  views  or 
ideas,  are  previously  present  in  the  mind  and  have  engaged  its  activities." 

This,  no  doubt,  is  true  of  hallucinatory  experiences  self-engendered  in 
the  subconsciousness;  but  it  is  not  so  of  veridical  ones,  such  as  a  picture 
or  message  transmitted  telepathically  from  an  agent  to  a  recipient  through 
the  superconsciousness.  The  real  difficulty  lies  in  distinguishing  between 
the  two  visions. 


164    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

nation,  perhaps  that  day-dreaming  which  belongs  to  the 
borderland  between  waking  and  sleeping. 

Luke,  it  is  true,  adds  (9  :  32)  that  the  disciples  were 
heavy  with  sleep  (vttvq)),  but  adds  directly  afterwards 
that  they  became  fully  awake  during  the  vision  itself. 
Probably  he  refers  here  to  ordinary  sleep;  but  he  may 
be  thinking  of  that  hypnotic  condition  which  often 
closely  resembles  sleep  and  which  so  frequently  accom- 
panies manifestations  of  the  superconsciousness.  His  re- 
mark, however,  has  given  critics  of  the  type  of  Mr.  J. 
M.  Robertson  the  welcome  opportunity  of  saying  that 
the  incident  cannot  be  historical  because  Luke  practi- 
cally admits  that  they  were  all  asleep  and  dreamt  the 
whole  thing.  But  similar  phenomena  have  been  fre- 
quently recorded  by  credible  witnesses  as  having  been 
manifested  by  many  of  the  great  saints  and  mystics  of 
various  ages.  In  moments  of  great  spiritual  exaltation, 
and  in  ecstasies,  when  the  superconscious  has  come 
forcibly  into  play  while  the  ordinary  consciousness  is, 
perhaps,  not  wholly  withdrawn  as  it  is  in  the  state  of 
deep  trance,  such  a  lighting  up  of  the  face,  and  even  of 
the  bodily  form,  has  been  put  on  record.  Even  dying 
persons  who  have  lived  lives  of  peculiar  piety  and  be- 
nevolence have  been  observed  to  undergo  a  remarkable 
spiritualisation  of  features  during  their  last  moments. 

This  view  of  the  transfiguration  of  Jesus  has  been  re- 
cently very  ably  urged  by  a  well-known  modern  writer1 
upon  these  obscure  religious  phenomena.  She  regards — 
and  rightly  so,  we  believe — the  visual  and  auditory  phe- 
nomena of  this  scene  as  the  outcome  of  a  state  of  spirit- 
ual ecstasy  in  which  all  present  shared  to  some  extent. 
"The  kernel  of  this  story,"  she  writes,  "no  doubt  elab- 
orated by  successive  editors,  possessed  by  the  passion 
for  the  marvellous  which  Jesus  unsparingly  condemned, 
seems  to  be  the  account  of  a  great  ecstasy  experienced 

1  Miss  E.  Underhill,  in  The  Mystic  Way,  p.  117. 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  165 

by  him  in  one  of  these  wild  and  solitary  mountain  places 
where  the  soul  of  the  mystic  is  so  easily  snatched  up  to 
communion  with  the  supreme  reality." 

With  this  view  of  the  matter  the  modern  theologian, 
especially  if  he  be  versed  in  the  psychology  of  the  ab- 
normal and  superconscious,  may  well,  in  the  main  at 
least,  agree. 

But  it  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  habit  of 
describing  experiences  of  a  supersensual  and  religious 
type  in  terms  of  a  vivid  and  symbolic  imagery  is  deeply 
rooted  in  the  Eastern  mind  of  all  ages.  It  is  to  this  fact, 
perhaps,  rather  than  to  the  passion  for  the  marvellous, 
that  we  owe  this  intensely  realistic  picture  of  a  great 
spiritual  event. 

It  was  by  prayer,  too,  i.  e.,  by  a  profound  and  delib- 
erate absorption  into  the  divine  life,  Miss  Underhill 
thinks — and  we  may  note  that  Luke  (only)  records  this 
(vs.  28) — that  Jesus  attained  to  this  transfigured  state. 
Hence  it  was  that  the  disciples,  whose  minds  were  up- 
lifted in  some  degree,  shared  in  the  spiritual  exaltation 
of  their  Master.  And  the  impression  thus  made  on  them 
was,  as  we  might  expect,  recorded  in  a  symbolic  form. 
To  their  minds,  full  of  recollections  of  the  past  and  of 
similar  experiences  to  that  in  which  they  now  had  a 
share,  Moses  and  Elijah  appeared  and  talked  with  their 
Master,  though  not  with  them.  And  even  when  the 
vision  faded  the  three  disciples  were  left  with  a  joint 
and  abiding  sense  of  the  reality  of  their  experience — a 
reality,  not  in  the  material  and  earthly  sense,  but  reality 
in  the  higher  and  spiritual  sense,  which,  unlike  earthly 
realities,  does  not  pass  away  but  abides  with  us  for  ever.1 


1  Certain  medical  and  scientific  writers,  as,  e.  g.,  De  Loosten,  Hirsch,  and 
Binet-Sangle,  ascribe  the  visions  of  Jesus  to  paranoia  (a  chronic  form  of 
insanity  developing  in  a  neuropathic  constitution  and  presenting  systema- 
tised  delusions). 

But  Schweitzer  very  justly  says  that  their  researches  have  "simply  as- 


166    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

sumed  that  what  for  us  is  strange  and  unfamiliar  is,  therefore,  morbid." 
And,  further,  that  "this  identification  of  the  unfamiliar  with  the  morbid, 
which  we  find  in  the  statements  of  the  historical  and  medical  writers  here 
in  view,  is  not  legitimate,  according  to  the  standards  established  by  mod- 
ern psychiatry." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  precise  line  of  demarcation  between  the  above  and 
the  really  healthy  spiritual  experiences  is  badly  needed  and  is  being  dili- 
gently sought  for  by  students  of  psychical  research.  Meanwhile,  we  may 
perhaps  add  that  the  merely  morbid  and  hallucinatory  has — at  least  as  a 
rule — no  ethical  note  about  it.  Cf.  Strauss,  Das  Leben  Jesujiir  das  deutsche 
Volk  bearbeitet  (1864),  pp.  631  jf.\  also  O.  Holtzmann,  War  Jesus  Ekstati- 
ker?  (1903). 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    ENTRY    INTO    JERUSALEM    AND    THE    EXPULSION    OF 

THE   TRADERS 

Among  the  earlier  of  the  recent  attacks  made  upon 
the  historical  character  of  these  two  narratives,  perhaps 
that  of  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  stands  out  most  conspicu- 
ously and,  at  first  sight,  as  the  most  plausible.  He  tells 
us  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  pp.  310  ff.)  that  these 
stories  contain  "not  a  single  item  of  credible  history"; 
the  former,  indeed,  he  avers,  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  an  old  myth  pseudo-historicised.1 

The  Entry  into  Jerusalem 

After  rebuking  Professor  Percy  Gardner  for  "  repeating 
once  more  the  fallacious  explanation  which  has  imposed 
(sic)  on  so  many  of  us,"  he  adds  that  "a  glance  at  the 
story  of  Bacchus  [Dionysus]  crossing  a  marsh  on  two 
asses"  and  "at  the  Greek  sign  for  the  constellation  Can- 
cer (an  ass  and  its  foal)  would  have  shown  him  that  he 
was  dealing  with  a  zodiacal  myth." 

The  basis  of  Mr.  Robertson's  authority  for  the  above 
confident  statement  (though  not  quoted  by  him)  is  the 
Poeticon  Astronomicon  of  Hyginus  (flourished  A.  D.  4). 
There  we  read  (book  II,  "Cancer")  that  "when  Bacchus 
had  come  to  a  certain  great  marsh,  which  he  was  unable 
to  cross,  having  come  across  two  young  asses,  he  is  said 
to  have  caught  one  of  them,2  and  in  this  way  was  carried 
across  so  that  he  did  not  touch  the  water  at  all." 

1  Cf.  with  this  treatment  that  of  Renan  (Life  of  Jesus,  XXIII). 

2  Dicitur  unum  deprendisse  eorum.    It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  even  in 
the  myth  two  asses  were  not  ridden. 

167 


168   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Now,  in  the  constellation  Cancer  there  are  two  stars 
(7  and  S,  Cancri)  in  the  body  of  the  Crab  which  were 
named  by  the  astronomer  Ptolemy  "the  two  asses" — 
ra>  8vco—(cf.  Theoc,  Idyl.,  XXII,  21;  Arat.,  890-898; 
Theophr.,  Sign.  Pluv.,  IV,  2;  Pliny,  XVIII,  20),  and  the 
luminous  patch  (Prcesepe)  seen  between  these  two  stars 
was  known  as  the  "Manger"  ((jxirvrf).1  And  the  above 
story  of  Dionysus  has  been  interpreted  to  be  a  symboli- 
cal explanation  of  the  astronomical  fact  that  the  sun 
when  in  the  midst  of  the  zodiacal  sign  Cancer  is  said, 
figuratively  speaking,  to  be  "riding  upon  two  asses,"  as 
the  Greek  astronomers  expressed  it,  and  shortly  after- 
wards reaches  the  zenith  of  its  power,  when  its  light  and 
heat  gradually  but  steadily  decline,  until  it  reaches  its 
death  at  the  hibernal  solstice  in  December.  We  will 
study  this  interesting  hypothesis,  and  its  application  to 
Christian  historic  documents,  in  some  detail. 

The  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac  are,  as  is  generally 
known,  those  stellar  constellations  through  which  the  sun 
passes  in  its  annual  journey  across  the  heavens.  At  a 
remote  period  of  past  time  that  orb,  when  crossing  the 
equator  at  the  vernal  equinox,  was  in  the  sign  Taurus 
(Bull),  and  the  new  year  was  then  opened  by  the  sun, 
conceived  as  a  bull  entering  upon  the  great  furrow  of 
heaven  (the  ecliptic)  as  he  ploughed  his  way  through 
the  starry  field  which  forms  the  sky.  Owing,  however, 
to  the  astronomical  phenomenon  known  as  the  preces- 
sion of  the  equinoxes,  the  sun  each  succeeding  year  en- 
tered upon  its  annual  course,  at  the  equinox,  at  a  slightly 
different  point  in  the  heavens,  until  by  the  time  of  Christ 
it  had  come  to  start  the  year  of  nature  in  the  sign  (or 
constellation)  Aries2  (Ram).     The  sign  of  the  Crab  (Can- 

1  This  figures  largely  in  the  Iranian  myth  of  Tigtar,  "  the  angel  of  the 
rain."  The  Greeks  undoubtedly  borrowed  many  of  their  astronomical 
ideas  and  terms  from  the  Babylonians. 

2  It  now  starts  the  year  from  the  sign  Pisces  (Fishes) ;  but  the  sign  for 
Aries  (Ram),  &,  is  conventionally  used  by  agreement  amongst  astronomers 


THE  ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM  169 

cer)  was,  therefore,  at  that  period  not  reached  until  the 
time  of  the  summer  solstice  (end  of  June). 

But  if,  after  the  manner  of  Mr.  Robertson,  we  apply 
the  above  astronomical  facts  to  the  story  of  Jesus'  entry 
into  Jerusalem  we  are  at  once  involved  in  serious  dis- 
crepancies and  difficulties.  That  entry  is  clearly  stated 
by  all  four  evangelists  to  have  taken  place  just  before 
the  Passover;  that  is  to  say,  about  the  time  of  the  vernal 
equinox,  when  tlie  sun  was  in  Aries.  In  other  words,  the 
story  of  Dionysus  " riding  upon  the  two  asses"  (sic) 
could  not  be  the  explanation  of  a  vernal  phenomenon, 
because  it  could  only  refer  to  one  taking  place  at  mid- 
summer, namely,  when  the  position  of  the  sun  was  in 
Cancer,  at  the  end  of  June.  Indeed,  it  happened  at 
quite  the  wrong  time  of  year  to  suit  any  such  astronom- 
ical explanation.  The  truth  of  the  matter,  however,  is 
that  Robertson's  theory  is  entirely  dependent  upon  the 
version  given  by  Matthew  of  that  event,  which,  it  so 
happens,  erroneously  lends  itself  to  this  recondite  and 
ridiculous  interpretation.  Let  us,  therefore,  turn  next 
to  the  Gospel  narratives  and  see  how  this  error  arose. 

We  will  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  editor  of 
"Matthew"  assures  his  readers  (21  14)  that  this  event 
was  a  fulfilment  of  Zechariah's  prophecy  (9:9).  The 
latter,  in  the  Massoretic  text,  tells  us  that  the  future 
Messianic  King  was  one  day  to  enter  his  city  riding  upon 
(literally) 

"An  ass,  even  upon  a  foal,  a  son  of  she-asses." 

This  prophecy  is,  as  prophetic  utterances  in  the  Old 
Testament  usually  are,  expressed  in  accordance  with  a 

as  the  astronomical  starting-point,  or  equinox.  It  takes  about  2,200  years 
for  the  sun  to  pass  through  one  sign  and  enter  upon  the  next  and  about 
26,000  years  to  pass  through  the  twelve  signs  and  reach  the  original  start- 
ing-point. 


170  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

notable  rule  of  Hebrew  poetical  composition,  namely,  in 
a  system  of  parallelism  in  the  lines,  in  which  the  second 
half  of  a  line,  or  the  second  member  of  a  couplet,  repeats 
in  different  words  the  idea  expressed  in  the  first  half  of 
the  line  or  the  previous  line  itself.  In  such  a  case  the 
two  halves  of  the  line  (or  the  two  lines)  are  frequently 
coupled  together  by  the  conjunction  Vav  (l),  which, 
ordinarily,  has  the  meaning  "and,"  but  in  positions  of 
this  kind  means  "even."  1  This  is  termed  by  gramma- 
rians the  epexegetical  (explanatory)  use  of  Vav.  The 
Greek  equivalent  ical  has  a  similar  double  use  and  double 
meaning. 

Now,  let  us  turn  to  the  Greek  LXX  translation  of 
Zechariah  (Vat.  text),  and  we  will  find  the  following 
literal  rendering  of  the  Massoretic  version: 

"Riding  upon  a  beast  of  burden,  even  (/cat)  a  young 

ass-foal." 

(e7JY/3e/3?7tfft)?  eirl  vTrotyyiov  feed  iroyKov  veov.) 

Here  the  conjunction  (/cat)  is  epexegetical.  It  should 
also  be  noticed  that  the  preposition  hrl  ("upon")  is  not 
repeated  after  the  teat,  as  it  would  be  if  the  writer  meant, 
"upon  a  beast  of  burden,  and  upon  a  young  ass,"  i.  e., 
upon  two  asses,  as  the  A.  V.  (but  not  the  R.  V.)  wrongly 
translates  both  versions. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  other  Gospels  and  see  how  far 
they  corroborate  this  explanation  of  the  matter.  Mark 
(n  :  7)  tells  us  that  only  one  ass,  and  that  a  young  foal, 
was  brought  to  Jesus: 

"They  bring  the  foal  to  Jesus  and  put  their  cloaks 

upon  him,  and  he  sat  upon  him." 
(<f>epov(TLV  rbv  ttcoXov  77730?  rov  'lycrovv  /cat  €7n/3dWovcnv 
avra)  ra  i/jbdrta  [avrcbvj  teal  itcdOiaev  eir   avrov.) 

1  Some  scholars  translate  it  "yea." 


THE  ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM  171 

Luke  (19  :  35)  records  the  matter  thus: 

"And  they  brought  him  [the  foal]  to  Jesus,  and  hav- 
ing thrown  their  cloaks  upon  the  foal  they  set  Jesus 
upon  him." 
(jcal   rjyayov  avrbv  77726?   rbv  'Irjcrovv  KaX  iirtpptyavTes 
avrcov  ra  IjJLCLTia  eirl  rbv  ttcoXov  e7re(3i(Bacrav  rbv  'Irjaovv.) 

The  Fourth  Gospel  (John  12  :  14  and  15)  agrees  with 
both  these  synoptists: 

"And  Jesus  having  found  a  young  ass  sat  upon  it, 
as  it  is  written: 

"Fear  not,  daughter  of  Zion: 
Behold  thy  King  comes 
Sitting  upon  a  foal  of  an  ass." 

(evpcov  Se  6  'Itjo-ovs  bvdpiov  etcdOicrev  hf  avro}  fca6a)<z  ecmv 

yeypafjifievov  ■ 

M?)  fyoftov,  Svyarep  ^2i(ov  • 
'ISou,  o  ftacnXevs  crov  ep^erac 
K.adijfjLevos  iirl  ttcoXov  ovov.) 

Turning  next  to  the  corresponding  Matthaean  version 
of  the  story,  we  find  it  differently  stated.  In  21  :  2  we 
read: 

"Ye  will  find  an  ass  tied,  and  a  foal  with  her" 
(evptfcrere  ovov  SeSefifjLevrjv  ical  nraykov  /Lter'aurr)?) 

t.  e.,  two  asses.    The  tcai  here,  it  will  be  seen,  is  not  epex- 
egetical. 

Again,  in  vs.  5,  the  writer  says,  professing  to  translate 
the  prophecy  of  Zechariah: 

"Thy  king  comes  to  thee  .  .  .  sitting  upon  an  ass, 

and  upon  a  foal,  a  son  of  a  beast  of  burden." 
(o  fiacnXevs  crov  ip^erai  croc  .  .  .  iTrifteftrjfccos  eVl  ovov 
/cat  eirl  7roi\ov}  vibv  viro^vyiov.) 


172    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 
Again  (vs.  7)  he  further  says: 

"And  they  led  the  she-ass,  and  the  foal  [to  Jesus], 
and  placed  their  cloaks  upon  them,  and  he  sat  upon 
them, 
(yyayov  ttjv  ovov  teal  tov  7roi)\ov}  teal  iiredrjteev  eir   avrcjv 
ra  lfjLaTta}  teal  eireKadiaev  i7rdvco  avreov.)1 

Here  it  is  very  evident  that  Matthew  and  (following 
him)  Mr.  Robertson  have  misunderstood  both  Zecha- 
riah  and  the  LXX.  And  this  primary  mistake  on  the 
part  of  Matthew  has  led  Mr.  Robertson  on  to  his  error 
in  identifying  the  story  with  that  told  of  Dionysus  in 
the  Greek  myth,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  he  misquotes. 
In  short,  his  explanation  breaks  down  completely  for  two 
main  reasons.  First,  Dionysus  riding  upon  two  asses  as- 
tronomically was  a  solstitial  and  not  an  equinoctial  phe- 
nomenon at,  and  long  before,  the  time  of  Christ;  and, 
secondly,  neither  the  Hebrew  prophet  nor  the  LXX,  nor 
any  of  the  evangelists  except  Matthew,  say  that  Jesus 
rode  upon  two  asses — a  statement  which,  in  actual  fact  at 
least,  would  be  a  gross  and  palpable  absurdity  to  every 
thoughtful  person. 

But  other  writers  belonging  to  this  school  of  interpreta- 
tion have  sought  for  different  sources  of  this  picturesque 
and  very  natural  story.  Thus,  Drews,  abandoning  for 
once  a  mythical  explanation,  urges  (The  Witnesses  to  the 
Historicity  of  Jesus,  pp.  207  and  208)  that  the  story  might 
easily  grow  up  out  of  the  study  of  such  passages  as  Isaiah 
52  :  7  (cf.  12  :  6  and  26  :  2)  and  Zech.  9  :  9.  He  falls, 
however,  into  the  same  error  as  Robertson,  translating  the 
prophecy  wrongly  as  referring  to  two  asses  and  quoting 
in  support  of  his  interpretation  Gen.  49  :  11,  "  Binding  his 

1  Zahn  and  Blass  adopt  another  explanation;  the  former  reads  "him" 
(avrbv)  instead  of  the  first  "them"  (airQp),  and  applies  it  to  the  foal,  re- 
ferring the  second  "them"  to  the  cloaks  of  the  people.  The  latter  adopts 
a  similar  correction,  but  strikes  out  the  second  abruv  and  seems  to  over- 
look the  fact  that  the  nal  (and  the  1 )  is  an  instance  of  epexegetical  use. 


THE  ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM  173 

foal  unto  the  vine,  and1  his  ass's  colt  unto  the  choice 
vine/'  as  being  probably  in  the  mind  of  the  evangelist 
when  he  recorded  the  story.  But  there  is  no  parallel  here 
and  no  probability  even  that  the  evangelist  thought  of 
this  passage  at  all.  This  fact  also  is  brought  out  more 
clearly  when  it  is  remembered  that  he  is,  throughout 
the  Gospel,  describing  a  suffering  and  not  a  triumphant 
Messiah. 

Equally  improbable,  again,  is  the  view  that  Mark's 
added  statement  that  no  man  had  ever  ridden  the  ass 
previously  is  a  reflection  of  Num.  19  :  2  (cf.  Deut.  21  13), 
which  orders  that  a  "faultless  cow"  upon  which  "never 
yoke  came,"  shall  be  brought  to  Eleazar  the  priest. 
There  is  absolutely  no  connexion  here  either  in  act  or 
thought. 

Drews,  however,  further  accuses  Matthew  of  proba- 
bly misunderstanding  the  cry  "Hosanna"  (Hoschia-na), 
"Save  now,"  and  making  it  a  cry  of  joy.  This  is  more 
reasonable  and  not  altogether  unlikely,  especially  since, 
as  we  have  seen,  Matthew  quite  misunderstood  the 
prophet's  reference  to  the  ass;  at  the  same  time  it  is 
not  quite  clear,  from  the  text  of  his  version  of  the  story, 
that  he  did  so.2 

It  is  also  possible,  if  not  probable,  that  the  words  of 
Jesus  recorded  in  Luke  19  :  40  were  suggested  to  him 
by  Habakkuk,  as  they  were  certainly  appropriate  to  the 
occasion  and  readily  lent  themselves  to  quotation.  But 
it  by  no  means  follows  from  this  fact  that  the  latter's 
prophecy  was  the  sole  or  even  the  principal  basis  of  the 
whole  story.  In  fine,  we  can  see  no  reasonable  probabil- 
ity that  these  various  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment suggested  the  material  for  a  pseudo-historical  story 
to  the  writers  of  the  Gospels. 

It  is  much  more  probable  that  we  have  here  some  four 

1  But  here,  too,  the  1  and  ko.1  are  probably  epexegetical. 

8  And  surely  our  "God  save  the  king !"  is  a  cry  of  joy  and  welcome. 


174    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

more  or  less  independent  records  of  an  actual  event, 
the  main  features  and  details  of  which  are  quite  in  ac- 
cord with  the  times  and  the  place  to  which  they  refer.1 

The  Expulsion  of  the  Traders 

A  more  important  suggestion  has  been  made  by  Mr. 
Butler  in  an  article  on  "The  Greek  Mysteries  and  the 
Gospels"  (The  Nineteenth  Century  and  After,  March,  1905). 
Starting  from  the  precarious  assumption  that  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus  lasted  only  one  year,  he  parallels  the 
public  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem  with  one  of  the  pro- 
cessions which  took  place  during  the  celebration  of  the 
greater  mysteries  at  Eleusis. 

On  these  occasions  the  mystce  ("initiated")  were  ac- 
companied by  great  crowds  to  the  temple,  where  the 
mystes  was  admitted  to  the  higher  grade  of  epoptes 
("beholder").  But  the  act  in  the  ritual  of  the  myste- 
ries upon  which  Butler  lays  special  stress  is  that  the 
bearing  of  a  /cepvos2  by  the  mystes  reappears  in  the  pro- 
hibition which  Jesus  (subsequently)  issued  (Mark  n  :  16) 
that  none  should  carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple. 

Mr.  Butler,  however,  has  fallen  into  some  error  of  de- 
tail here.  The  kernos  was  not  carried  by  one  of  the 
mystae.  It  was  borne  by  a  priest  or  priestess  called  the 
Kepvofyopos  ("kernos-bearer"),  or  icepvas,  and,  moreover, 
was  an  item  in  the  procession  itself.  The  prohibition  of 
Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
procession  and  was  probably  directed  merely  against  the 

^ranke  thinks  {Dents.  Lit.  Ztg.,  1901,  pp.  2758/.)  that  this  has  "corre- 
spondencies" with  the  solemn  entry  of  Buddha  Dipankhara  (Buddhavamsa, 
II),  where  it  is  stated  that,  "the  people  swept  the  pathway,  the  gods  strewed 
flowers  on  the  road  and  branches  of  the  coral-tree,  the  men  bore  boughs  of 
all  manner  of  trees,  and  the  Bodhisattva  Sumedha  spread  his  garments  in 
the  mire,  and  men  and  gods  shouted  'All  hail.'  " 

2  A  large  earthenware  dish  made  with  wells,  or  hollows,  in  the  bottom, 
in  which  various  fruits  were  offered  in  the  rites  of  the  Corybantes.  See 
Liddell  and  Scott's  Lex.,  sub.  nipvos.  Mark  refers  to  a  <r/ceOos,  "a  vessel  or 
implement  of  any  kind." 


THE  "CURSING"  OF  THE  FIG-TREE  175 

excessive  formalism  and  irreverence  which  characterised 
the  Jewish  official  worship  of  the  day.  The  two  stories, 
indeed,  are  utterly  unlike  except  for  the  reference  in  each 
to  vessels  of  some  kind. 

The  "Cursing"  of  the  Fig-Tree 

Equally  inconclusive,  too,  is  his  attempt  to  explain  the 
incident  of  the  fig-tree  recorded  in  Matt.  21  :  18  and  19. 

"At  Athens,"  he  continues,  "there  was  a  sacred  fig- 
tree  at  which  one  of  the  processions  always  halted  to  offer 
sacrifices  and  perform  certain  mystic  rites,"  the  fig  being 
one  of  several  trees  having  especial  significance  in  the 
cults  of  Dionysus  and  the  goddess-mother.  But  the  in- 
cident mentioned  in  the  Gospel  did  not  occur  during  a 
procession;  it  took  place,  we  are  told,  on  the  morning 
after,  as  he  returned  to  the  city  from  Bethany,  where 
the  night  was  spent;  also  there  is  no  trace  whatever  of 
any  mystic  meaning  in  the  circumstance.  It  was  ap- 
parently a  mere  picturesque  and  vivid  way  of  calling 
the  attention  of  his  disciples  to  the  fact  that  the  whole 
sacrificial  and  religious  system  of  the  Jews  of  that  time, 
while  making  a  fair  show  and  great  promise  of  fruit,  was, 
on  a  closer  view,  wholly  barren  and  fruitless. 

On  the  other  hand,  this  order  concerning  the  temple 
vessels  and  the  expulsion  of  the  traders,  Drews  thinks, 
was  suggested  by  the  Targum  translation  of  Zech.  14  :  21 : 
"Every  vessel  in  Jerusalem  will  be  consecrated  to  the 
Lord,  etc.;  and  at  that  time  there  will  no  longer  be 
shopkeepers  in  the  house  of  the  Lord"  (The  Christ 
Myth,  p.  237,  note  2).  In  this  prophecy  he  imagines 
"there  may  have  been  a  further  inducement  for  the 
evangelists  to  state  that  Jesus  chases  the  tradesmen 
from  the  temple."  It  would  seem  much  more  probable 
that  this  prophecy  might  suggest  the  act  to  Jesus  him- 
self, who  was  undoubtedly  scandalised  at  the  shameless 
traffic  which  had  sprung  up  and  flourished  in  the  outer 


176    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

court  of  that  building.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  (John 
2  :  15  and  16)  a  similar  act  on  the  part  of  Jesus  is  re- 
corded which,  according  to  some  exegetes,  refers  to  the 
same  event  but  has  been  misplaced  by  the  editor.  Here 
Jesus  is  described  as  making  a  scourge  of  small  cords 
previous  to  driving  out  the  traders.  This  view  is  open 
to  some  doubt;  but  it  affords  Mr.  Robertson  an  op- 
portunity of  saying  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  XII, 
p.  358)  that  "in  the  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  systems  a 
scourge-bearing  god  is  a  very  common  thing  on  the 
monuments. "  This  is  true;  but  that  fact,  as  a  modern 
writer  has  justly  observed,  "not  being  an  historical  one, 
is  apparently  supposed  here  to  prove  that  the  story  nar- 
rated in  all  four  Gospels  is  also  unhistorical — a  curious 
application,"  he  adds,  "of  the  logical  syllogism!"  The 
whip,  or  flail,  depicted  on  ancient  monuments  as  being 
often  carried  by  gods — and  in  particular  by  Osiris — is, 
however,  a  general  symbol  of  authority  and  power.1 
But  the  Jews  were  already  very  familiar  with  the  idea; 
the  thirteen- thonged  whip  with  which  the  "forty  stripes 
save  one"  (II  Cor.  11  :  24;  cf.  Deut.  25  :  3),  were  in- 
flicted was  a  well-known  institution  in  the  Jewish  penal 
code. 

Finally,  we  may  notice  the  explanation  put  forward 
by  Fries  (Studien  zur  Odyssea)  that  we  have  in  the  story 
of  the  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem  simply  a  variant  of 
the  astromythological  myth  of  the  spring-god  entering 
his  temple,  or  of  Odysseus  the  ascetic  bhikshu.2  The 
cleansing  of  the  temple  also,  in  his  view,  represents  the 
destruction  of  chaos  by  the  god  (Marduk)  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  world.  But  it  is  very  difficult  to  see 
how  these  ancient  cosmogonic  concepts  could  suggest  to 

1  Mr.  Robertson  seems  rather  to  imply  (loc.  cit.)  that  the  flail  (or  whip) 
is  a  "sign"  of  Osiris  as  the  "Egyptian  Christ."  But  this  sign  of  power  is 
also  carried  by  representations  of  Ptak,  the  creator,  and  Jesus  in  using  the 
whip  is  certainly  not  ipso  facto  figuring  as  a  god ! 

2  A  kind  of  mendicant  friar  in  India. 


THE  "CURSING"  OF  THE  FIG-TREE  177 

the  mind  of  any  scribe  or  compiler  such  a  matter-of-fact 
story.  The  whole  narrative  undoubtedly  suggests  strongly 
to  every  unbiassed  reader  that  it  is  a  plain  account  of 
an  actual  event  which  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  the 
great  and  final  crisis  in  the  life  and  work  of  the  great 
Galilean  teacher. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   EUCHARIST  AND   THE   MYSTERY-CULTS 

The  Institution  of  the  Eucharist 

We  will  commence  our  necessarily  brief  examination 
of  this  most  important  subject  with  a  statement  of  Doc- 
tor Drews's  fundamental  position  taken  from  The  Wit- 
nesses to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  pp.  81-83. 

"Historical  theology,"  he  says,  " generally  regards  the 
passage  in  Corinthians  [I  Cor.  n  :  23]  as  the  earliest 
version  we  have  of  the  words  used  at  the  institution  of 
the  supper.  But  a  particularly  striking  reason  that  pre- 
vents us  from  seeing  in  St.  Paul  the  oldest  tradition  of 
the  words  at  the  Last  Supper  is  their  obviously  litur- 
gical form  and  the  meaning  which  the  apostle  puts  on 
the  words.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  Paul  and  Luke 
alone  regard  the  Lord's  Supper  as  instituted  by  Jesus 
in  memory  of  him;  Mark  and  Matthew  know  nothing 
of  this.  They  have  a  much  simpler  text  than  the  other 
two.  Hence  Julicher,  against  Weizsacker  and  Harnack, 
rightly  doubts  whether  the  supper  was  founded  by  Jesus 
(Theol.  Abhandlungen  fur  C.  Weizsacker,  1892,  p.  232). 
He  did  not  institute  or  found  anything;  that  remained 
for  the  time  when  he  came  into  his  father's  kingdom. 
He  made  no  provision  for  his  memory;  having  spoken 
as  he  did  in  Matt.  26  :  29,  he  had  no  idea  of  so  long  a 
period  of  future  time  (p.  244). 

"Paul,  therefore,"  Drews  continues,  "according  to  Ju- 
licher, indicates  a  later  stage  of  the  tradition  in  regard 
to  the  first  eucharist  than  Mark  and  Matthew,  and  the 
earliest  tradition  does  not  make  Jesus  show  the  least 

178 


THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  EUCHARIST         179 

sign  that  he  wishes  these  material  actions  to  be  per- 
formed in  future  by  his  followers  (p.  238).  If  this  is  so, 
the  words  of  the  institution  were  interpolated  subsequently 
in  the  text  of  Paul,1  as  the  liturgical  use  of  them  in  the 
Pauline  sense  became  established  in  the  church,  in  order 
to  support  them  with  the  authority  of  the  apostle,  and 
the  words  'For  I  have  received  from  the  Lord'  serve  to 
give  further  proof  of  their  authentic  character;  or  else 
the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  not  written  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  as,  in  spite  of  Jiilicher,  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  Paul  could  at  so  early  a  stage  give  a  version 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  that  differed  so  much  from  that  of 
the  primitive  community." 

And  he  finally  concludes  (p.  83):  "The  mysticism  of 
the  festive  supper  cannot  have  been  instituted  by  Jesus, 
but  is  based  on  the  cult  of  the  Christian  community  and 
was  subsequently  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  supposed  founder."  2 
Let  us  examine  the  chief  statements  in  the  above  passage 
seriatim. 

Doctor  Drews  asserts  here  that  the  Pauline  version 
of  the  words  of  institution  of  the  Eucharist  are  pre- 
cluded from  acceptance  as  the  oldest  version  by  their 
"obviously  liturgical  form."  Now,  this  objection  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  early  church,  soon  after  the  end 
of  the  first  century,  possessed  in  some  form  or  other  a 
set  liturgy  at  least  for  celebrating  the  weekly  Eucharist. 
But  this  is  certainly  not  the  view  held  by  liturgiologists, 
who  are  agreed  that  no  set  form  of  liturgical  words  com- 
mitted to  writing  was  used  by  the  church  before  the  end 
of  the  second  century.  There  is,  for  example,  no  men- 
tion of  any  ritual  books  amongst  those  delivered  up  by 
the  traditores  in  the  persecutions  under  Diocletian.  In- 
deed, the  earliest  extrabiblical  account  of  the  manner  of 
celebrating  the  Eucharist  is  probably  that  of  Justin  Mar- 
tyr (ApoL,  I,  65  and  66),  which,  on  the  whole,  appears 

1  Italics  ours.  2  Italics  ours. 


180    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

to  follow  the  Lucan  form  of  words  for  the  consecration. 
The  fact,  no  doubt,  is  that  each  church  probably  re- 
peated the  words  of  institution  and  consecration  from 
memory,  according  as  they  were  handed  down  in  their 
traditions,  which  naturally,  while  agreeing  in  principle, 
varied  in  detail  as  all  oral  (even  the  most  trustworthy) 
traditions  tend  to  do. 

Neither  can  we  see  any  grounds  here  for  Doctor 
Drews's  theory  of  a  first-century  development — espe- 
cially in  the  idea  of  a  commemoration  in  the  Eucharist. 
If  this  were  the  case  we  should  expect  to  find  a  steady 
increase  in  the  prominence  given  to  such  a  memorial 
aspect  of  the  Eucharist  in  documents  written  subse- 
quently to  St.  Paul's  time.  But  we  do  not  find  this. 
For,  taking  the  later  documents  in  the  order  agreed 
upon  by  a  consensus  of  critical  scholars,1  we  have  in 
Mark  the  shortest  form  of  words;  in  Matthew  a  formula 
almost  identical  with  that  of  Mark;  while  in  Luke,  who 
wrote  something  like  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  St. 
Paul,  the  "memorial"  is  only  mentioned  incidentally 
after  the  consecration  of  the  bread.  And  this  some 
thirty  years  after,  as  we  are  told,  a  liturgical  develop- 
ment and  a  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  "  memorial "  had 
sprung  up !  These  facts  as  we  have  them  do  not  bear 
out  this  hypothesis;  for  the  "development"  in  A.  D.  85 
is  clearly  less  than  it  was  in  A.  D.  55.  And  the  only 
way  out  of  this  difficulty  is  to  postulate  hypothetically 
a  much  later  interpolation  in  I  Cor.  11  :  23,  for  which 
there  is  not  the  smallest  textual  or  other  evidence  what- 
ever. 

Neither,  again,  do  we  find  any  reference  to  this  litur- 
gical and  memorial  development  in  the  Acts,  i.  e.,  about 
A.  D.  90;  nor  is  it  conspicuous  later  on  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  where,  according  to  the  theory,  it  ought,  above 

1I.  e.,  I  Corinthians,  52-55;    Mark,  65-68;    Matthew,  70-75;    Luke, 
80-85;    Acts,  85-90;  John,  90-95  A.  D. 


THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  EUCHARIST         181 

all,  to  be  met  with.  In  the  discourse  found  in  the  sixth 
chapter,  following  upon  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 
a  meal  with  probably  eucharistic  characteristics,1  there 
is  absolutely  no  direct  mention  of  the  memorial  view. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  regard  the  mere  fact  that  Mark 
and  Matthew  do  not  refer  to  it  as  a  "memorial"  as 
indicating  beyond  question  that  this  view  of  the  Eu- 
charist was  undeveloped  in  the  original  and  still  earlier 
written  Pauline  letter.  We  cannot,  indeed,  draw  any 
such  sweeping  conclusions  from  a  mere  omission  in  two 
of  the  records  of  direct  reference  to  the  memorial  as- 
pect of  the  Eucharist.  Mark  and  Matthew  are  con- 
tent to  emphasise  the  most  important  portions  of  the 
formula  of  consecration:  "This  is  my  body — this  is  my 
blood."  To  draw  further  conclusions,  on  the  ground  of 
omission,  is  just  as  reasonable  as  to  argue  that  because 
Mark  (14  :  22)  omits  the  injunction  "eat"2  it  was  not 
customary  at  first  to  do  more  than  handle  the  eucharistic 
bread,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  sacra  in 
the  mysteries.  Mark  also  omits  the  Matthaean  injunc- 
tion, "drink  ye  all  of  it" — i.  e.,  the  wine;  but  he  adds, 
nevertheless,  that  "they  all  drank  of  it."  The  truth  is, 
the  argument,  from  mere  omission,  is  always  an  unsatis- 
factory and  a  dangerous  one;  but  the  theory  of  develop- 
ment is  more  dangerous  still  when  the  facts  under  con- 
sideration have  to  be  seriously  distorted  in  order  to 
justify  some  preconceived  idea,  which  is  certainly  the 
case  here. 

There  is  also,  however,  a  very  strong  and  direct  reason 
for  holding  that  the  idea  of  a  "memorial"  (avdfivrja-K, 
Luke  22  :  19)  was  attached  to  the  Eucharist  in  the  two 
earliest  Gospels.     All  three  synoptists  (correctly  or  in- 

1  It  is  probable  that  the  Last  Supper  was  not  the  first,  or  the  only  one, 
of  these  consecrated  meals.  Whether  it  is  or  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the 
Passover  meal  is  another  question. 

2  Absent  in  the  best  codices. 


182  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

correctly)  regard  the  Last  Supper  as  the  Passover  meal.1 
This  latter  feast  was  always  regarded  as  a  "  memorial " 
(fjivri/jLoavvov,  LXX,  Ex.  12  :  14)  of  a  great  deliverance. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  by  associating  the  Euchar- 
ist itself  so  closely  with  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
paschal  supper  they  meant  to  imply  that  the  former 
of  these  was  in  like  manner  a  "memorial"  of  another 
deliverance  wrought  by  Jesus,  which  was  a  spiritual 
analogue  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  Luke,  it  is 
true,  uses  a  different  word  for  the  idea — avdfivrjais2  instead 
of  the  fjLV7]fjLo<7vvov  of  the  LXX — but  the  distinction  here, 
if  any,  in  their  meaning  is  trifling  and  unimportant  and 
does  not  affect  the  question.3 

It  is,  moreover,  quite  unthinkable  that  Jesus,  even  if 
he  did  regard  his  own  teaching  merely  as  an  interimse- 
thik — which  has  not  been  demonstrated — did  not  estab- 


1  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  is  well  knov  -  apparently  does 
not  regard  the  Last  Supper  as  the  Passover.  Much  has  ueen  written  on 
the  question  and  many  attempts  have  been  made  to  harmonise  the  two 
positions.  The  following  explanation  of  the  difficulty  proffered  by  Doc- 
tor S.  Krauss,  in  an  article  on  the  "Passover"  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopaedia, 
seems  to  be  especially  worthy  of  notice:  "Chwolson  (Das  Letzte  Passamahl 
Christi,  St.  Petersburg,  1893)  has  ingeniously  suggested  that  the  priests 
were  guided  by  the  older  Halakah,  according  to  which  the  law  of  the  Pass- 
over was  regarded  as  superior  to  that  of  the  Sabbath,  so  that  the  lamb 
could  be  sacrificed  even  on  Friday  night  [the  preparation  for  the  Sabbath] ; 
whereas  Jesus  and  his  disciples  would  seem  to  have  adopted  the  more 
rigorous  view  of  the  Pharisees,  by  which  the  paschal  lamb  ought  to  be 
sacrificed  on  the  eve  of  the  14th  of  Nisan  when  the  15th  coincided  with 
the  Sabbath  (see  Bacher,  in  Jew.  Quart.  Rev.,  pp.  683-686)."  But  cf.  also 
Doctor  Sanday's  opinion  in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "Jesus 
Christ."  Mr.  G.  H.  Box  (Journ.  of  Theol.  Studies,  III,  357-369)  regards 
the  Last  Supper  as  the  weekly  Kiddush,  a  service  held  in  the  house. 

2  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  some  authorities  (e.  g.,  W.  and 
H.)  regard  Luke  22  :  19b  and  20  as  no  part  of  the  original  text  but  due  to 
a  "Western  non-interpolation." 

3  According  to  Liddell  and  Scott,  &pd[ivr)(ris  in  classical  Greek  =  the  "act 
of  remembering,"  whereas  fivt]/x6crvvov  means  a  "remembrance"  or  "me- 
morial" of  some  thing  or  person.  But  these  finely  drawn  distinctions,  even 
if  they  were  always  (?)  observed  in  the  classical  period,  are  often  quite 
set  aside  in  late  Greek.    Both  words  here  are  undoubtedly  synonyms. 


THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  EUCHARIST         183 

lish  this  sacrament  and  give  to  it  also  its  memorial  as- 
pect. Such  a  bond  of  unity  and  source  of  power  and 
inspiration  would  be  necessary  to  keep  the  body  of  dis- 
ciples together  and  to  perpetuate  his  authority  for  a 
period  of  even  a  few  years.  And  how  much  more  neces- 
sary for  a  longer  period !  Hence  the  idea  that  the  Eu- 
charist was  instituted  by  St.  Paul,  or  in  his  time,  on  the 
analogy  of  the  meals  of  the  mystery-cults  is,  for  this  rea- 
son alone,  quite  incredible. 

Once  more,  it  is  impossible  to  accept  the  view  of  Doc- 
tor Jiilicher — as  against  Professors  Harnack  and  Weiz- 
sacker — that  Matt.  26  :  29  implies  that  Jesus  had  "no 
idea  of  so  long  a  period  of  future  time"  intervening  be- 
fore he  came  into  his  Father's  kingdom,  and  therefore 
did  not  institute  or  found  anything  and  made  no  pro- 
vision for  his  memory.  This  view  is,  indeed,  negatived 
by  the  following  facts.  In  Mark  13  :  32  (cf.  Matt. 
24  :  36)  he  expressly  states:  "Of  that  day  and  of  that 
hour  knoweth  none,  not  any  angel  in  heaven,  not  even 
the  Son,  but  the  Father."  It  is  true  that  elsewhere  it  is 
stated  that  upon  occasion  he  once  leant  to  the  expectation 
that  it  might  all  come  to  pass  during  the  lifetime  of  that 
generation.  But  he  had  no  certainty  on  this  point,  and, 
in  any  case,  a  period  of  some  years  would  probably  be 
involved  during  which  some  "memorial"  of  himself  and 
his  work  would  be  needed. 

And  with  this  view  of  the  matter  the  words  of  Matt. 
26  :  29  agree.  Here  Jesus  does  not  say  that  the  disciples 
will  not  again  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  wine 
before  the  inauguration  of  his  Father's  kingdom,  but 
that  he  himself  will  not  do  so  until  the  day  when  he 
would  celebrate  it  in  his  Father's  kingdom.  It  is  the 
last  occasion  during  the  earth  life  for  him,  but,  by  im- 
plication, it  is  not  the  last  time  for  them.  This  and 
nothing  else  is  the  plain  meaning  of  this  passage,  which 
has  been  either  summarily  dismissed  or  perverted  in  its 


184     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

meaning  in  order  to  support  a  special  theory  of  escha- 
tology. 

In  a  similar  manner  Doctor  Drews's  suggestion  that 
the  words  of  the  institution  were  interpolated1  subse- 
quently [to  A.  D.  55]  in  the  text  of  St.  Paul's  letter  as 
the  liturgical  use  of  them  (in  the  Pauline  sense)  became 
established  in  the  church  is  a  mere  makeshift  hypothe- 
sis for  bolstering  up  the  view  that  the  mysticism  of  the 
" festive"  [!]  supper  cannot  have  been  instituted  by 
Jesus,  but  is  based  on  the  cult  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity and  was  subsequently  put  in  the  mouth  of  its  sup- 
posed founder.  If,  as  Doctor  Drews  holds,  Jesus  Christ 
never  existed,  and  Christianity  as  handed  down  to  us 
from  the  middle  of  the  first  century  is  a  system  of  mere 
cult-worship  and  ritual  devised  by  the  Christian  com- 
munity itself,  what  need  is  there  for  maintaining  that 
St.  Paul's  version  of  the  institutive  words  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  older  form  (?)  found  in  the  Gospels  of 
Mark  and  Matthew?  This  seems  to  come  perilously 
near  to  the  vicious  system  of  "  circular  reasoning,"  for, 
if  neither  St.  Paul's  version  nor  those  of  Mark  and 
Matthew  represent  the  words  of  an  actual  founder, 
then  all  these  alike,  with  the  version  of  Luke,  are  mere 
liturgical  formula  used  in  a  pseudo-memorial  sense. 
But  ex  hypothesi  the  formulce  of  Mark  and  Matthew  do 
not  show  this  liturgical  form  and  use.  The  conclusion, 
therefore,  is  irresistible,  even  from  Doctor  Drews's  own 
reasoning,  that  the  words  recorded  by  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew must  be  those  of  a  personal  founder  handed  down 
in  a  somewhat  brief  and  incomplete  form  which  is  often 
assumed  by  early  tradition,  but  which,  nevertheless,  pre- 
serves the  most  vital  portion  of  the  utterances.  It  is, 
indeed,  as  Doctor  Drews  himself  confesses,  difficult  to 
believe  that  Paul  could  at  so  early  a  stage  give  a  ver- 
sion of  the  Lord's  Supper  that  differed  so  much  from 

1  Or  else  the  letter  is  not  Pauline ! 


THE  ACTS  AND  WORDS  OF  INSTITUTION        185 

that  of  the  primitive  community;  but  this  fact — if  it  be 
a  fact — does  not  indicate  that  the  community  invented 
the  memorial  portion  and  then  foisted  it  on  to  a  sup- 
posed founder.  Rather,  it  shows  that  the  community 
had  treasured  up  the  various  slightly  differing  tradi- 
tional forms,  which  St.  Paul  doubtless  learned  from  the 
apostles  themselves  when  he  met  them  in  council  at 
Antioch  (Gal.  2:11)  and  afterwards  combined  when  he 
wrote  his  letter  to  the  Corinthian  church.  This  view  of 
the  matter  at  least  has  all  the  facts,  as  we  know  them, 
wholly  in  its  favour. 

The  Acts  and  Words  of  Institution 

We  will  now  turn  from  the  fact  of  the  institution  of 
the  Eucharist  by  Jesus  to  the  acts  and  words  by  which 
it  was  instituted,  and  in  so  doing  endeavour  to  approach 
this  great  subject  in  the  spirit  of,  and  with  the  eyes  of, 
the  man  of  the  first  century.  And  to  do  this  we  must 
first  of  all  disembarrass  ourselves  of  all  sacramental  the- 
ories of  a  metaphysical  nature,  whether  they  be  those 
of  the  Middle  Ages  or  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  later. 

In  the  view  of  the  men  assembled  in  the  upper  room 
in  Jerusalem,  and  others  of  their  age,  a  being  of  a  heav- 
enly origin  such  as  the  Messiah,  by  virtue  of  the  divine 
power  within  him,  was  a  person  " charged''  (so  to  speak) 
with  a  living,  t  spiritual  energy  (Awa/u?1)  which  could  be, 
and  indeed  often  was,  communicated  to  others.  Such 
transfer,  too,  was  commonly  made,  voluntarily  or  even 
involuntarily,  by  the  bodily  touch  or  by  the  spoken  word; 
sometimes,  and  perhaps  more  effectually  in  certain  cases, 
by  the  two  combined. 

There  are  numerous  examples  of  this  fact  recorded  in 
the  books  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Thus 
we  read  (Mark  5  :  30)  that  when  Jesus  was  on  his  way 

1  Hebrew,  i«d,  "strength,"  "force"  (spiritual).    See  Deut.  6  :  5;   Isaiah 
47  :  9,  etc. 


186    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

to  the  house  of  the  head  of  the  synagogue  he  was  touched 
by  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood.  He  then  became 
conscious  that  power  (Bwafus)  had  gone  out  of  him,  and 
asked:  "Who  touched  me?"  (cf.  Luke  8  :  46).  Again, 
in  Luke  6  :  19,  we  find:  "And  the  whole  multitude 
sought  to  touch  him;  for  there  went  power  out  of  him 
(Swa/w?  Trap  avTov),  and  it  healed  them  all."  Here  we 
have,  perhaps,  an  instance  of  the  involuntary  and  sub- 
conscious transfer  of  this  innate  and  spiritual  life-energy 
in  response  to  the  purposive  touch  of  faith. 

Further,  we  read  again  in  Matt.  8  :  8  of  the  centu- 
rion who  besought  the  help  of  Jesus  for  a  sick  child,  say- 
ing: "Only  speak  the  word  (\6yov),  and  my  boy  shall 
be  healed."  The  spoken  word  is  here  regarded  as  the 
vehicle  of  this  mysterious  life-giving  energy  which  (so 
to  say)  streams,  or  is  projected,  from  Jesus  under  cer- 
tain conditions  and  in  certain  circumstances.  Instances 
of  this  transfer,  as  we  may  term  it,  drawn  from  the 
recorded  miracles  of  healing,  might  easily  be  multiplied, 
but  it  is  needless  to  do  so.  We  will,  however,  mention 
just  one  other  by  which  a  combination  of  these  methods 
is  illustrated.  In  the  case  of  the  "raising"  of  the  son 
of  the  widow  of  Nain,  it  is  stated  that  "he  came  and 
touched  the  bier  .  .  .  and  he  said,  Young  man,  I  say 
unto  thee,  arise!";  and  the  dead  man,  says  the  evange- 
list, sat  up  and  began  to  speak.1 

But  here  it  is  necessary  to  enter  a  caveat.  This  power, 
or  spiritual  essence,  which  is  thus  transferred  by  touch 
or  projected  by  word  or  transferred  by  these  methods 

1  The  reader  will  clearly  understand  that  throughout  this  exposition  we 
are  merely  trying  to  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the  man  of  the  first 
century.  Modern  psychology  would  doubtless  explain  the  miracles  of 
healing  differently;  but  it  is  needless  to  discuss  that  question  here.  Doubt- 
less the  problem  thus  stated  will  call  to  mind  the  long  discussion  carried 
on  between  the  mesmerists,  who  postulated  a  fluidic  substance  (the  od  or 
odylic  force  of  von  Reichenbach) ,  which  was  transferred  from  the  opera- 
tor to  the  subject,  and  the  hypnotists,  who  explained  the  effects  as  entirely 
due  to  mental  suggestion. 


THE  ACTS  AND  WORDS  OF  INSTITUTION        187 

conjointly  is  not  necessarily  operative  for  good  or  even 
operative  at  all.  This  one  test,  indeed,  separates  it  wholly 
from  magic  pure  et  simple,  with  which  superficial  modern 
readers  have  frequently  confounded  it.  Magic  is  always 
regarded  as  operative,  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the 
magician,  whatever  the  state  of  mind  of  the  victim;  that 
is,  unless  the  latter  can  bring  into  play  some  more  power- 
ful counter-magic.  Thus  we  read  (Matt.  13  :  5  and  8): 
"And  he  did  not  many  works  of  power  (SiW/zet?  iroWdsi) 
there  because  of  their  unbelief"  Failure  on  the  part  of 
the  recipients  to  respond  to  and  to  utilise  the  power  be- 
stowed rendered  the  efforts  of  Jesus  nugatory.  So  also 
did  a  want  of  faith  in  the  agent  to  whom  the  power  was 
delegated  render  him  incapable  of  transferring  the  gift 
(cf.  Matt.  17  :  20;  Mark  16  :  14).  In  short,  if  we  may 
express  the  matter  in  modern  scientific  terminology,  this 
spiritual  power,  or  energy,  when  transmitted  was  usually 
in  potentia;  it  had  to  be  transmuted  by  the  recipient 
through  faith  into  the  kinetic  form  before  it  was  really 
effective  for  its  purpose. 

Once  more,  the  power  thus  transferred  was,  in  cer- 
tain cases  and  spiritual  states,  not  only  ineffective  but 
positively  harmful  to  the  recipient  in  both  a  spiritual 
and  a  physical  sense,  even  when  transmitted  through 
the  medium  of  food.1  Perhaps  the  most  striking  Biblical 
instance  of  this  is  the  case  of  Judas.  It  is  not  certain 
whether  we  are  to  understand  from  the  records  that  he 
was  present  or  not  at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist. 
But  in  any  case  he  was  present  at  the  preceding  sup- 

1I.  e.,  it  was  regarded  as  effective  in  resisting  the  entrance  of  demons 
and  expelling  them,  or,  again,  in  case  of  misuse  of  it,  of  promoting  their 
entrance  into  the  man.  An  instance  of  injurious  physical  effect  is  related 
in  the  Acts  of  Thomas  (501) :  "Now,  there  was  there  a  young  man  who  had 
committed  a  crime  [murder],  and  he  came  to  and  partook  of  the  Eucharist, 
and  both  of  his  hands  became  withered  [paralysed],  so  that  he  could  not 
move  either  of  them  to  his  mouth."  This  story  (though  uncorroborated) 
may  be  quite  true,  and  in  that  case  would  doubtless  be  explained  by  the 
modern  psychologist  as  the  effect  of  autosuggestion. 


188    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

per,  whether  that  were  paschal  or  non-paschal.  And  we 
read  (John  13  :  26)  that  Jesus  explained  to  the  disciples 
that  his  betrayer  would  be  the  man  "for  whom  I  shall 
dip  the  sop  tyeofiiov)  and  give  to  him."  Then  he  dipped 
and  gave  it  to  Judas,  "and,"  adds  the  writer  very  sig- 
nificantly, "  after  the  sop  Satan  entered  into  him."  This 
passage  has  been  at  all  times  a  sore  stumbling-block  to 
many  who  have  failed  to  grasp  its  real  significance — 
Jesus  deliberately  handing  over  Judas  to  Satan!  Not 
only  was  no  effort  made  to  save  the  wretched  man, 
but  he  was  even  placed  in  the  power  of  the  prince  of 
evil !  How  shocking !  But  this  view  shows  a  total  mis- 
apprehension of  the  idea  underlying  the  whole  act.  The 
"sop"  (only  mentioned  in  this  Gospel1)  was  a  special 
morsel  which  Jesus  took  up  at  this  moment  and  handed 
to  Judas,  perhaps  in  accordance  with  a  common  East- 
ern custom.  But  it  had  been  touched  by  Jesus,  and 
consequently  was  fraught  with  spiritual  power,  which, 
if  received  with  faith  and  a  real  desire  to  resist  tempta- 
tion, would  have  saved  the  man.  The  latter,  however, 
rejected  the  opportunity  and  wilfully  perverted  the  gift 
to  his  own  destruction.  Jesus  intuitively  and  swiftly 
realises  this,  and  then  adds  in  an  undertone:  "What 
thou  doest,  do  quickly!"  No  more  sympathy  can  be 
felt  for  the  man;  he  had  been  given  and  had  lost  his 
last  opportunity.  He  must  now  work  out  the  conse- 
quences of  his  final  decision  and  reap  his  due  reward. 

The  action  of  this  power,  therefore,  it  will  be  seen, 
was  not  like  that  of  magic  generally;  it  was  not  that 
expressed  in  later  times  by  the  scholastic  phrase  opus 
operatum;  it  was  conditional  and  dependent  as  well 
upon  the  faith  and  will  of  the  recipient  for  its  effective- 
ness for  good  or  evil. 

Now,  the  synoptists  all  tell  us  that  when  instituting 
the  Eucharist  after  the  Last  Supper  Jesus,  after  pro- 

1  The  question  of  its  historicity  does  not  affect  the  argument. 


THE  ACTS  AND  WORDS  OF  INSTITUTION       189 

nouncing  a  blessing  upon  it,1  took  bread  and  brake  it. 
Then  he  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  saying:  "Take  [eat], 
this  is  my  body'3  (tovto  io~rt  to  <jw/xa  /xou).2  Next,  re- 
peating the  blessing  over  one  or  more  of  the  cups  of 
wine,  he  said:  "This  is  my  blood  (tovto  Icti  to  alpd 
(jlov)  of  the  [new]  covenant."  Probably  all  readers  are 
familiar  with  the  outlines  at  least  of  the  long  and  acri- 
monious controversy  which  has  raged  over  the  precise 
meaning  of  these  words  of  institution — a  controversy 
which,  by  appealing  rather  to  passion  and  prejudice 
than  to  an  intelligent  effort  to  understand  the  mental 
outlook  of  the  first  century,  has  been  largely  barren  of 
fruitful  results.3  Viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  those 
assembled  in  the  upper  room,  we  have  here  the  touch  of 
power  and  the  word  of  power,  each  effectual  for  the  pur- 
pose underlying  the  act.  Hence  these  phrases,  though 
in  a  sense  symbolic,  are  not,  however,  mere  symbols,  as 

1  The  modern  Jewish  blessing  upon  the  paschal  bread  and  wine  runs  as 
follows:  "Blessed  art  thou,  0  Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  universe,  who 
bringest  forth  bread  from  the  earth.  .  .  .  Blessed,  etc.  .  .  .  who  createst  the 
fruit  of  the  vine."  In  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  chaps.  9/.,  are 
several  eucharistic  thanksgivings  which  are  probably  modifications  of  an- 
cient Jewish  graces.  The  cup  was  very  likely  the  third  one  of  the  paschal 
meal. 

2  The  formula  given  by  Mark  (see  p.  181,  note  2). 

3  From  the  linguistic  point  of  view,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Jesus 
almost  certainly  spoke  in  Aramaic.  The  copula  ("is"),  in  that  case,  would 
probably  not  be  used.  Moreover,  the  verb  "to  be"  in  all  languages  is 
used,  in  a  sense,  figuratively.  Thus,  "I  am  the  way,"  or  "the  door,"  etc., 
are  equivalent  to  "I  represent  the  way,"  "door,"  etc.,  that  is,  "I  have  the 
value  of  it." 

We  have  no  evidence  that  there  was  any  sacramental  partaking  of  the 
body  of  such  gods  as  Osiris,  Adonis,  or  Attis  in  their  cult  feasts.  As  regards 
Dionysus,  see  The  Asiatic  Dionysus,  G.  M.  N.  Davis,  p.  232. 

So  also,  speaking  of  the  Babylonians,  Doctor  Langdon  says  (Tammuz 
and  Ishtar,  pp.  183  and  184):  "They  failed  to  evolve  a  universal  and  eth- 
ical creed  of  faith  in  a  vicarious  martyr,  and,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  they  failed 
to  institute  any  real  sacrament  with  elements  of  grain,  liquor,  and  bread, 
which  symbolised  their  own  gods." 

For  evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  theophagy  amongst 
the  ancient  Mexicans  (Aztecs)  and  the  Hindus,  see  Frazer's  Golden  Boughy 
"Spirits  of  the  Corn  and  of  the  Wild."  vol.  II,  pp.  89  and  90. 


190  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

some  have  hastily  concluded,  but  symbols  teeming  with 
the  divine  life-energy  of  Jesus,  which  has  (so  to  speak) 
flowed  into  them,  and  can  pass  by  means  of  the  elements 
themselves  into  the  soul  of  the  recipient  and  affect  him 
either  for  good  or  ill,  or,  it  may  be,  not  affect  him  at  all, 
according  to  the  mental  and  volitional  attitude  with  which 
he  receives  them.  The  ordinary  thinkers  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, it  must  be  remembered,  were  all  vitalists1  to  a  man, 
and  they  regarded  the  body  as  the  habitation  of  this  op- 
erative, personal,  and  spiritual  life-energy  and  the  blood 
as  par  excellence  the  channel  of  its  distribution  therein. 
And  just  as  the  body  and  blood  of  the  man  hold,  locked 
up  within  them  during  life,  the  human  vital  power,  or 
soul,  so,  too,  did  these  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  hold, 
transferred  to  and  locked  up  within  them,  the  vivifying 
divine  life-power  (Sum/us)  of  Jesus.  There  is  here,  it  will 
be  evident,  no  subtle  transmutation  of  an  hypothetical 
substantia  of  the  bread  and  the  wine,  whilst  the  acci- 
dentia remain;2  there  is  no  question  of  simple  represen- 
tation by  mere  symbols — an  almost  incomprehensible 
thought  to  the  men  of  that  period;  the  elements  are 
thus  operative  representatives  of  the  Divine  Being  which 
discharge  the  actual  divine  energy  into  the  soul  of  the 
communicant.  This  idea  is,  in  effect,  the  highest  possi- 
ble development  of  a  primitive  vitalistic  animism,  which 
early  Christianity,  in  this  greatest  of  all  sacraments,  in- 
corporated in  its  system  and  raised  to  its  utmost  limit 
of  spiritual  value.  And  it  is,  we  repeat,  inconceivable 
that  Jesus  should  have  omitted  to  institute  such  a  neces- 
sary and  crowning  sacrament  of  his  life  and  work  before 
ceasing  to  be  visibly  present  amongst  men. 

1  This  theory  (vitalism)  has  been  revived  in  modern  times  in  an  improved 
form  by  Doctor  Hans  Driesch  {The  History  and  Theory  of  Vitalism,  1914). 
See  also  his  Gifford  Lectures  for  1907.  It  has  for  many  years  been  prac- 
tically replaced  by  the  mechanistic  hypothesis  of  life. 

2  This  view  is  really  founded  upon  an  obsolete  theory  of  matter  devised 
in  the  Middle  Ages  by  Thomas  Aquinas  and  adopted  by  the  Thomist  school. 


THE  COMMON  MEAL  AT  ELEUSIS  191 


The  Common  Meal  at  Eleusis 

We  will,  in  the  next  place,  examine  Mr.  Slade  But- 
ler's case  for  a  eucharistic  derivation  from,  or  at  least 
a  parallel  to,  the  common  meal  partaken  of  by  all  the 
mystce  at  Eleusis1  ("The  Greek  Mysteries  and  the  Gos- 
pels," pp.  492  J".,  The  Nineteenth  Century  and  After, 
March,  1905),  and  quote  him  verbatim:  "It  was  after  a 
purification  on  the  evening  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  day  of 
the  celebration  that  the  mystas  partook  together  of  a 
meal  called  the  tcv/cewv  [kykeon],  a  mixture  which  was 
both  food  and  drink,  being  a  thickened  liquid  com- 
pounded of  barley-meal,  mint,  and  water.  The  partak- 
ing of  the  kv/c€(ov  by  all  the  mystae  in  common  was  the 
Eleusinian  sacramental  meal  and  was  an  essential  and 
necessary  rite  before  any  mystes  could  pass  to  the  higher 
grade  [epoptes].  The  parallel  between  the  common  meal 
of  the  mysteries  and  the  Last  Supper  of  the  Gospels  is 
especially  noticeable  in  Luke's  account  (22  :  14-20).  As 
regards  the  substance  of  the  tcv/cewv,  it  seems  to  have 
been  a  mixture  of  such  consistence  as  to  be  considered 
either  food  or  drink.  Had  the  writer  of  John  6  :  55  the 
tcvfceayv  in  his  mind  when  he  represents  Christ  as  say- 
ing: 'My  flesh  is  true  food,  and  my  blood  is  true  drink'? 
for  there  is  nothing  in  his  allusion  to  the  manna  in  the 
wilderness  (vs.  49)  to  suggest  the  idea  of  drink,2  whereas 
the  icv/cecbv  partook  of  the  nature  of  both  food  and  drink. 

"The  next  ceremony  in  the  mysteries  was  the  most 
solemn  of  all  the  rites  which  preceded  the  last  scene  in 
the  drama,  and  was  known  as  the  TrapdSoo-L?  rcov  lep&v, 
'the  handing  over  of   the  holy  things'   or  'the  giving 

1  The  Eleusinian  mysteries  were  sacred  to  Demeter,  the  earth-mother,  and 
her  daughter  Kore. 

2  The  mere  reference  to  the  wilderness,  however,  where  water  was  very 
scarce,  would  suggest  drink  with  the  food  (manna). 


192    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

in  turn  of  the  consecrated  objects.'  In  this  ceremony, 
which  took  place  after  the  partaking  of  the  kvk€(ov  in 
common,  '  the  mystae  were  admitted  one  by  one  to  touch, 
to  kiss  the  holy  things,  to  lift  them  from  the  cist,  and  to 
pronounce  the  sacred  formula'  (Ramsay).  In  Mark  we 
are  told  (14  :  22),  'And  as  they  were  eating  he  took 
(Xaftdov)  the  bread  (or  unleavened  cake),  and,  having 
blessed  it,  he  broke  it,  and  gave  (eSco/cev)  to  them  and  said : 
Take  ye  (XdfteTe).'  In  Matthew  (26  :  26)  the  word  'eat' 
is  added  after  'take.' 

"The  sacred  formula  which  was  pronounced  by  each 
mystes  during  or  immediately  after  the  nrapdhocns  t&v 
lep&v  is  thus  given  by  Clement  of  Alexandria:  evrjcrrevo-a, 
einov  tov  tcvicecova,  ekafiov  etc  icUrrq?  eyyevad/jievos  direOefiriv 
eh  icd\a6ov,  ical  i/c  /cakddov  eh  /clctttjv,  'I  fasted,  I  drank 
the  kykeon,  I  took  from  the  chest,  I  tasted,  I  placed  in 
the  basket,  and  from  the  basket  into  the  chest.'  The 
klcttt]  was  the  sacred  box  or  chest  in  which  the  lepd  or 
'holy  things'  wrapped  in  linen  cloths  were  preserved:  iff- 
yevadfievos  signifies  'having  tasted'  the  lepd,  or  some  of 
them,  such  as  the  sesame-cake  and  the  pomegranate,  which 
seem  to  be  too  sacred  to  be  mentioned  by  name. 

"In  reference  to  this  formula  in  which  the  /cvtcea>v  is 
regarded  as  a  drink  and  not  as  a  food,  we  may  notice 
that  Luke  (22  :  17)  says:  'And  he  received  a  cup  .  .  . 
and  said,  Take  this  and  divide  it  among  yourselves,' 
where  it  is  plain  that  the  cup  of  vs.  17  was  an  earlier  cup 
than  that  mentioned  in  vs.  20 — 'and  the  cup  in  like  man- 
ner after  supper  saying:  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant'; 
that  is  to  say,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  second  Trapd- 
Boais,  or  handing  over  of  the  cup  by  Christ.1  Now,  in 
some  celebrations  of  the  mysteries2  there  was  a  second 
7rapdBo<n<;  tuv  lepdv,  which  appears  to  have  been  preserved 

1  See  p.  198. 

2  Those  of  Cybele  (Ma)  with  Attis,  which  differed  from  the  Eleusinia, 
appear  to  be  referred  to  here. 


THE  COMMON  MEAL  AT  ELEUSIS  193 

for  the  mystag  who  proceeded  to  the  highest  grade.  In 
these  cases  something  was  eaten,  not  merely  tasted,  and 
something  was  drunk,  which  was  not  the  /cv/ceav;  this 
seems  clear  from  the  formula  then  used:  etc  TvyjRavov 
e<f)ayov)  m  /cvfiflakov  emoPj  eKepvo^oprfaa  vtto  top  iraaTov 
V7re8vv}  'I  ate  from  a  drum;  I  drank  from  a  cymbal;  I 
carried  the  vessel,  the  /cepvos;  I  went  in  under  the  curtain.' 
The  /ce'pvos  was  a  large  earthenware  vessel,  or  dish,  in 
which  was  placed  the  fruit  offerings,  and  the  curtain 
(7rao-To?)  was  the  variegated  veil  in  the  temple  of  Deme- 
ter.  Only  those  mystas  or  epoptae  who  proceeded  to  the 
highest  grade — probably  to  the  priesthood — of  the  mys- 
teries performed  the  ceremonial  acts  mentioned  in  this 
formula. 

"Now,  it  seems  that,  though  the  essential  words  of 
these  two  formula  of  the  mysteries  appear  in  the  Gos- 
pel narrative  of  the  ' handing  over'  of  the  bread  and 
the  cup — take,  eat,  drink  (Matt.  26  :  26-29) — the  word 
TrapdSoais  is  not  used  of  the  ceremony  itself;  but  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  word  occurs  in  the  verses  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  'handing  over'  of  the  bread  and  cup 
vss.  21-25)  m  the  form  of  a  verb — 'one  of  you  will  hand 
me  over' — Trapahoxrei  (vs.  21);  'he  that  dippeth  his  hand 
with  me  in  the  dish,  this  man  shall  hand  me  over'  {irapa- 
Sao-ei  fie,  vs.  23).  For  the  true  meaning  of  7rapaSiSa>/xt  is 
to  'hand  over'  from  one  to  another,  as  a  torch  in  the 
torch-race,  7rpo${8cofu  being  the  usual  word  to  express  be- 
trayal; and  it  is  plain  that  if  Christ  uttered  the  words 
recorded  in  vs.  21  the  Aramaic  verb  used  by  him  must 
have  been  indefinite  in  meaning,  and  suggestive  of  treach- 
ery only  by  reference  to  subsequent  events,  otherwise  it 
would  have  been  impossible  that  all — every  one — (vs.  22) 
of  the  disciples  should  have  asked:  'Is  it  I?  Am  I 
the  traitor?'  In  Luke,  though  the  order  of  the  narra- 
tive is  reversed,  the  connexion  between  the  irapdhoaa 
of  the  bread  and  cup  and  the  use  of  the  word  irapa- 


194    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Sl8q)/m  is  quite  as  close,  for  (Luke  22  :  21)  as  Christ 
hands  over  the  cup  to  the  disciples  he  breaks  off,  saying: 
'But  the  hand  of  him  who  is  handing  me  over  (rod 
TrapahhovTos  fie)  is  with  me  at  the  table';  and  in  I  Cor. 
11  :  23  the  connexion  is  closer  still:  'The  Lord  Jesus 
in  the  night  in  which  he  was  handed  over  (Trape&iSoTo) 
took  (eXafiev)  bread.'  So,  again,  just  as  the  iepd  in  the 
mysteries  were  kissed  during  the  Trapd&oats,  or  while  they 
were  being  handed  over,  so  we  read  in  Matthew  (21  : 
48):  'He  who  handed  him  over  (0  7rapa§i$ofc)  gave  them 
a  sign  saying,  Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that  is  he.'  And 
in  John  20  :  17  we  meet  with  the  word  'touch'  in  the  ex- 
pression 'touch  me  not,'  that  is,  'do  not  hold  me  now,' 
for  my  Trapdhocris  is  over  and  completed. 

"Returning  for  a  moment  to  the  question  asked  by 
the  disciples,  'Is  it  I?  Am  I  to  hand  you  over?'  it  is 
to  be  noticed  that  in  the  mysteries  the  ceremony  of  hand- 
ing over  the  holy  things  was  necessarily  performed  by 
the  mystae  one  at  a  time,  'one  by  one,'  and  in  Mark 
(14  :  19),  the  earliest  known  Gospel,  we  find  these  words 
occur:  'They  began  to  be  sorrowful  and  to  say  to  him  one 
by  one,  Is  it  I  ? '  The  expression  one  by  one  is  not  to  be 
found  in  any  of  the  later  Gospels — the  phrase  is  changed 
in  Matthew  (26  :  22),  it  is  almost  gone  from  Luke  (22  : 
23),  and  has  quite  disappeared  from  John  (13  :  21  and 
26).  This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  later  writers  did 
not  recognise  the  source  from  whence  the  words  one  by 
one  came  or  that  they  wished  to  conceal  it.  The  phrase 
in  Mark,  el?  ica0y  et?,  'one  after  one,'  'one  after  the  other,' 
is  remarkable  for  the  peculiar  use  of  the  word  /caTa,  which 
seems  to  be  an  adverb  rather  than  a  preposition.  This 
strange  expression  seems  to  indicate  that  the  writer  of 
Mark's  Gospel  had  found  the  words  so  written  in  some 
Greek  note  or  document  which  he  was  using  as  the  foun- 
dation of  his  narrative,  a  note  or  document  of  weight  and 
authority  sufficient  to  induce  him  to  retain  the  phrase  in 


THE  PURIFICATION  IN  THE  MYSTERIES       195 

his  own  history;  for  a  translator  from  some  Aramaic  or 
Hebrew  writing,  or  a  transcriber  of  oral  tradition,  would 
almost  certainly  have  made  use  of  the  ordinary  and  well- 
known  expression  na&  eva.  However,  the  words  el?  icaff1 
eh  express  in  the  plainest  manner  that  the  question  was 
asked  by  all  in  turn,  one  at  a  time,  that  is  to  say,  one  fol- 
lowing after  the  other. " 

We  will  proceed  shortly  to  examine  this  somewhat 
lengthy  quotation  in  as  great  detail  as  our  limits  of  space 
will  admit  of.    But  previously  another  matter. 

The  Purification  in  the  Mysteries 

On  the  second  day  of  the  greater  Eleusinia  at  Athens 
the  cry  was  raised:  "AXaSe,  ilvgtoli"  ("To  the  sea,  mys- 
tae !").  A  procession  was  then  formed,  and,  going  to  the 
shore,  the  candidates  underwent  a  preliminary  purifica- 
tion (teaOapfjios)  by  bathing  in  the  sea.1  This  is  compared 
somewhat  vaguely  by  Mr.  Butler  with  the  washing  of 
the  disciples'  feet  (John  13  :  4-1 1).  No  mention  of  this, 
he  admits,  occurs  in  the  synoptics;  but  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  he  says,  there  is  the  man  bearing  the  pitcher  of 
water,  which  he  rather  hastily  seems  to  assume  has  an 
indirect  reference  to  this  purification. 

Now,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  Gospels  or  elsewhere 
to  show  that  this  washing  of  the  feet  occupied  in  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Eucharist  anything  like  an  analogous  posi- 
tion to  the  preliminary  cleansing  of  the  greater  mysteries. 
It  is  more  akin  to  the  purely  social  usage  common  to 
Eastern  peoples  (Gen.  18  :  4;  19  :  2;  24  :  32,  etc.).  It 
is  true  that  Jesus  condemned  the  merely  formal  hand- 
washing of  the  Pharisees;  but  this  stands  on  a  some- 
what different  footing.  Each  mystes,  too,  was  ritually 
clean  after  his  sea  bath;  but  Jesus  very  significantly 

1  According  to  Plutarch  (Vita  Phoc,  XXVIII),  each  candidate  took  down 
to  the  sea  a  young  pig  and  bathed  with  it.  Sacrificer  and  sacrifice  were 
together  purified  by  the  salt  water.  It  was  a  rite  of  "riddance"  (cf. 
Lev.  16  :  21). 


196   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

remarks  after  this  ceremony,  "Ye  are  not  all  clean," 
doubtless  meaning  thereby  Judas,  who  was  not  spiritu- 
ally cleansed  despite  the  washing.  That  the  ceremony 
was  symbolic  of  a  higher  purity  is  no  doubt  true;  but 
it  had  no  effect  ex  opere  operato ;  and  the  personal  act  of 
Jesus  was  primarily  an  example  of  true  humility  (vs.  14). 

Again,  as  regards  the  mystic  meals  of  the  Eleusinia 
and  other  mysteries,  we  have  little  real  information  on 
the  subject.  The  Eleusinian  formula  preserved  by  Clem- 
ent says:  "I  fasted;  I  drank  of  the  kykeon"  1  Did  the 
disciples  fast  before  partaking  of  this  Eucharist?  Not 
absolutely,  in  any  case,  for  they  partook  of  the  frugal 
supper  shortly  before.  The  kykeon  of  the  mysteries,  too, 
was  a  kind  of  thin  gruel.  In  Homer's  time  (77.,  XI,  638 
ff.)  it  was  commonly  made  of  barley-meal,  goat's-milk 
cheese,  and  Pramnian  wine;  to  those  ingredients  Circe 
added  honey  and  magical  herbs  (Od.,  X,  234  jf.).  But 
the  kykeon  referred  to  in  the  Homeric  Hymn  to  Demeter 
(11.  208  /.) — which  was,  no  doubt,  identical  with  that 
used  in  the  Eleusinia — was  made  of  barley-meal,  water, 
and  pennyroyal. 

A  similar  description  of  the  meal  partaken  of  in  the 
mystery-cult  of  the  Great  Mother  with  Attis  is  recorded 
by  Firmicus  Maternus  (flourished  circ.  374  A.  D.).  Here 
the  initiate  says  (Be  Errore  Prof,  Relig.,  XVIII):  "I 
have  eaten  out  of  a  drum;  I  have  drunk  out  of  a  cymbal; 
I  am  become  a  mystes  of  Attis"  (e/c  tv/jlttcivov  Pefipco/ca 
Ik  Kv/i/3d\ov  7T€7rcoKa  •  yeyova  fjLi>(TT7)$  "Att€co$)  .  Here  there 
is  a  definite  eating  and  drinking — perhaps,  in  this  case, 
of  bread  and  wine — spoken  of.  But  what  did  it  signify 
here?  Was  it  anything  beyond  an  identification  of  the 
initiate  with  the  Great  Mother  through  the  medium  of 
these  fruits  of  the  earth,  her  children? 

Again,  in  the  Eleusinia,  besides  the  drinking  of  the  ky- 

1  Equivalent  to  "I  tasted  of  the  first  fruits,"  which  were  previously  under 
a  tabU  (=  forbidden). 


THE  PURIFICATION  IN  THE  MYSTERIES        197 

keon,  Clement  of  Alexandria  also  specifies  certain  of  the 
ritual  acts:  "I  took  [the  sacra]  out  of  the  chest  (kio-tt]*;), 
and,  having  tasted,  I  placed  [them]  in  the  basket  (/cd\a- 
6ov),  and  from  the  basket  into  the  chest."  What  were 
thus  taken  out,  transferred,  and  put  in  again  ?  It  will  be 
worth  while  to  quote  Clement's  description  of  them,  which 
is  all  the  more  valuable  because  he  himself  was  an  ini- 
tiate in  more  than  one  of  the  various  mysteries  (Euse- 
bius,  Prcep.  Evan.,  II,  2,  35).  Clement  asks:  "What  are 
these  mystic  chests? — for  I  must  expose  their  sacred 
things  (lepd)  and  disclose  a  state  of  affairs  not  fit  for 
speech."  He  then  interrogatively  enumerates  these  vari- 
ous sacra  as  follows:  "Are  they  not  sesame-cakes,  and 
pyramidal  cakes,  and  globular  and  flat  cakes,  embossed 
all  over,  and  lumps  of  salt,  and  a  serpent,  the  symbol  of 
Dionysus  Bassareus?  And,  besides  these,  are  there  not 
pomegranates,  and  branches,  and  ivy  leaves  ?  And,  fur- 
ther, round  cakes  and  poppy  seeds  ?  In  addition  to  these 
there  are  the  unmentionable  symbols  of  Themis,  mar- 
joram, a  lamp,  a  sword,  a  woman's  comb,  which  is  a 
euphemism  and  mystical  expression  for  the  genitalia  mu- 
liebria"1  (fcreh  yvvaifeelo$}  0  icrriv  euc/> 77/1.0)?  teal  ixvgtuc&s 
elirelv,  /JLoptov  yvvaaceiov). 

Truly  an  edifying  list!  And  we  cannot  wonder  that 
the  worthy  father — liberal-minded  and  cultured  scholar 
as  he  was — indignantly  adds:  "Such  are  the  mysteries 
of  the  atheists.  And  with  reason  I  call  those  atheists 
who  know  not  the  true  God,  but  pay  shameless  worship 
to  a  boy  torn  to  pieces  by  the  Titans,  and  to  a  woman 
in  distress,  and  to  parts  of  the  body  which  in  truth  can- 
not be  mentioned  for  shame.  .  .  ." 

rThe  same  writer  states  that  the  sacra  in  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus- 
[Zagreus]  were  dice,  a  ball,  a  hoop,  apples,  a  top  (p6/i/3os,  ?  "bull-roarer"), 
a  mirror,  and  a  tuft  of  wool,  with  which,  according  to  the  later  myth,  the 
Titans  beguiled  the  youthful  Dionysus  before  they  tore  him  limb  from 
limb.  He  further  describes  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus  as  "wholly  inhu- 
man," a  conclusion  to  which  we  may  readily  assent. 


198  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Now,  the  problem  which  lies  before  us  is,  What  con- 
nexion have  these  cult-meals  with  the  Eucharist  as  insti- 
tuted in  the  early  church?  And  the  answer  to  this, 
despite  the  opinions  of  some  eminent  scholars  to  the 
contrary,  would  seem  to  be,  they  have  little  if,  indeed, 
any  at  all.  When  the  primitive  Eucharist  is  closely 
and  carefully  examined  it  will  be  seen,  we  think,  that 
its  affinities  are  almost  wholly  with  the  paschal  feast; 
it  is,  in  fact,  an  outgrowth  from  this,  but  possessing  spe- 
cial characteristics  and  peculiarities  of  its  own. 

The  ancient  Passover,  as  described  in  Ex.  12  :  11  /., 
soon  underwent  considerable  modifications,  and  at  the 
centralisation  of  all  sacrifices  at  the  one  sanctuary  by  the 
Deuteronomic  code  the  old  spring  pastoral  feast  coalesced 
with  the  (later)  agricultural  Massoth  (Deut.  16  :  1). 

In  the  time  of  Jesus  various  additional  ceremonies 
were  observed,  the  chief  of  which  were:  (1)  Four  cups 
of  wine  mixed  with  water  were  drunk  at  different  stages 
of  the  feast;  (2)  the  Hallel1  was  sung;  (3)  the  various 
articles  of  food  (the  lamb  and  the  unleavened  cakes) 
were  not  dipped  in  the  sauce  of  bitter  herbs;  and  (4) 
the  feast  was  not  eaten  standing,  but  reclining.  The 
unleavened  bread  was  broken,  and  this  with  the  wine 
in  each  cup,  after  being  duly  blessed,  was  passed  round 
to  the  guests  by  the  head  of  the  household,  though  this 
passing  round  is  nowhere  called  a  irapdhoc^  and  bore 
no  analogy  to  that  ceremony  in  the  cult-feasts.  Mr. 
Butler  refers  to  a  "second  irapaZocris  of  the  cup  by 
Christ."  But  there  were  in  all  four  so-called  "  para- 
doses," since  there  were  four  cups;  and  it  is  probable 
that  either  the  third  or  fourth  cup  was  the  one  reserved 
for  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.  In  short,  the  whole 
manner  of  celebrating  this  supper  and  the  subsequent 
institution  of  the  Eucharist  is  clearly  based  upon  the 

1  Probably  not  identical  with  the  later  Hallel  (Psalms  113-118);  cf.  Bab. 
Talm.,  Pesach.  9  :  3. 


"HANDING  OVER"  OR  "BETRAYAL"?         199 

contemporary  mode  of  celebrating  the  paschal  feast, 
and  all  such  practises  as  the  exhibition  of  carefully  pre- 
served sacra,  whether  food  or  symbolic  objects,  all  hand- 
ing of  these  round  and  kissing  of  them  by  the  initiates 
in  turn,  are  altogether  absent.  In  its  form,  as  found 
in  the  Gospels,  the  Eucharist  is  typically  Jewish  and 
in  no  sense  pagan,  whatever  non- Jewish  ideas  and  prac- 
tises may  have  crept  in  during  the  second  century  when 
the  church  had  become  flooded  with  Gentile  converts, 
many  of  whom  were  initiates  in  the  mysteries  and 
brought  with  them,  at  least  to  some  extent,  the  habits 
of  thought  which  were  characteristic  of  their  pre-Chris- 
tian frame  of  mind. 

"Handing  Over"  or  "Betrayal"? 

We  now  come  to  a  passage  in  Mr.  Butler's  article  in 
which  the  "handing  over"  (TrapaSoacs)  of  the  various 
sacra  in  the  cult-suppers  is  deliberately  compared  by 
him  to  the  "handing  over"  of  Jesus  to  the  priests  by 
Judas  Iscariot.  Strictly  speaking,  of  course — as  Mr. 
Butler  admits — any  such  comparison  should  be  with  the 
distribution  of  the  bread  and  wine  to  each  recipient; 
but,  unfortunately  for  his  purpose,  these  acts  are  not 
termed  a  irapdhoais  by  the  evangelists.  At  the  same 
time  it  so  happens  that  Jesus  remarked  during  the  sup- 
per: "One  of  you  will  hand  me  over"  (irapahwaei) .  Here, 
Mr.  Butler  seems  to  think,  we  have  the  link  with  the 
irapdhoav;  of  the  mysteries.  In  the  Christian  "mystery- 
drama"  the  handing  over  is  not  that  of  the  objects 
(sacra),  but  that  of  the  Christ,  or,  as  Professor  W.  B. 
Smith  states  it,  of  the  "Christ-idea"  from  the  Jews  to 
the  Gentiles. 

Now,  the  somewhat  elaborate  argument  by  which 
Mr.  Butler  supports  his  case  is  wholly  dependent  for 
its  validity  upon  a  distinction,  which  he  introduces  and 
presses  vigorously,  between  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 


200   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

verbs  7rapaS{Bco/xL  and  TrpoSiScofu;  the  former,  he  argues, 
always  means  to  "hand  over/'  whilst  to  " betray"  is  in- 
variably expressed  by  the  latter  verb.  This  question, 
which  is  also  raised  by  Professor  Smith  in  connexion 
with  Judas  Iscariot,  will  be  fully  dealt  with  under  that 
heading  in  chap.  13  (pp.  253-256).  Here  it  must  suffice 
to  say  (1)  that  the  distinction  drawn  above,  and  gener- 
ally (but  not  invariably)  made  in  classical  Greek,  does 
not  at  all  hold  good  in  the  popular  and  post-classical 
Greek  of  the  first  century,  as  will  be  shown  by  examples;1 
(2)  that  Judas  has  in  one  instance  (Luke  6  :  16)  the 
term  7rpoSoV?7?  ("betrayer")  applied  to  him,  which  shows 
that  his  act  of  "handing  over"  of  Jesus  was  not  regarded 
by  first-century  Christians  as  a  mere  ritual  act  in  some 
Jewish  or  Gentile  mystery-drama  akin  to  the  Greek  Eleu- 
sinia,  but  was  looked  upon  as  a  piece  of  actual  treachery 
on  his  part.  Accordingly,  upon  the  complete  breakdown 
of  this  alleged  distinction  in  meaning,  the  analogy  which 
Mr.  Butler  attempts  to  draw  between  the  kissing  of  the 
sacra  from  the  chest  and  the  kiss  of  the  traitor2  bestowed 
upon  Jesus  in  Gethsemane  loses  its  entire  force. 

Again,  Mr.  Butler's  further  effort  to  associate  the  touch- 
ing of  the  various  sacra  in  the  mysteries  with  the  touch 
referred  to  in  John  20  :  17,  where  Jesus  forbids  Mary 
Magdalene  to  hold  to  him  (jirj  /jlov  ainov),  "  for  my  irapd- 
Socrt?  is  over  and  completed,"  is  a  pure  fiction  of  Mr. 
Butler's  own  mind.  The  writer  of  that  Gospel  says  that 
Jesus  forbade  the  act  because  "  I  have  not  yet  ascended 
to  my  Father"  (ovirco  <yap  avafieftrj/ca  77790?  rbv  7raTepa)}  a 

*We  may  mention  here  that  Liddell  and  Scott  quote,  as  examples  of 
this,  Xen.,  Cyr.,  V,  1,  28;  iv,  51,  etc.  Another  case  occurs  in  Thucy.,  VII, 
68;  but  it  is  not  common  in  classical  times.  In  the  LXX  and  the  New 
Testament  TrpoSldwfii  appears  to  be  rarely  used  at  all. 

2  The  Gospels  vary  considerably  here  in  details.  While  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew say  that  Judas  "kissed  him  affectionately"  (icaTe<pl\r]<rev  airbv) — 
a  form  of  salutation  more  accordant  with  deliberate  Oriental  treachery 
than  the  formal  kiss  of  a  mystery-drama — Luke  and  John  do  not  mention 
any  kiss  at  all. 


"HANDING  OVER"  OR  "BETRAYAL"?  201 

reason  which,  whatever  its  precise  meaning  may  be,  shows 
clearly  that  the  author  had  not  Mr.  Butler's  thought  in 
view  when  he  penned  the  passage. 

Mr.  Butler  next  proceeds  to  deal  with  the  question, 
"Is  it  I?"  asked  severally  by  the  disciples  when  Jesus 
announced  his  foreknowledge  of  the  coming  betrayal,  and 
in  so  doing  lays  great  stress  upon  the  peculiar  (and 
ungrammatical)  expression  used  by  Mark,  eh  ica&  eh, 
11  one  after  one,"  i.  e.,  "one  after  the  other."  "This 
strange  expression,"  he  urges,  "seems  to  indicate  that 
the  writer  of  Mark's  Gospel  had  found  the  words  so 
written  in  some  Greek  note  or  document  which  he  was  using 
as  the  foundation  of  his  narrative,1  a  note  or  document 
of  weight  or  authority  sufficient  to  induce  him  to  retain 
the  phrase  in  his  own  history.  Otherwise  he  would  have 
used  the  ordinary  phrase  [el?]  read'  eva. 

If  Mr.  Butler  means  by  this  remark  that  the  above 
(hypothetical)  Greek  note  or  document  was,  perhaps, 
a  kind  of  rubric  attached  to  some  MS.  of  a  mystery- 
drama  in  which  there  was  enacted  a  ceremonial  hand- 
ing over  of  any  sacred  things  or  sacred  person  by  any 
one,  or  by  a  succession  of  initiates,  we  can  only  remark 
here  that  this  is  a  purely  fanciful  hypothesis  which 
practically  begs  the  whole  question  at  issue.  There  is 
no  evidence  whatever  of  such  dramas  as  existent  amongst 
the  Jews  or  early  Christians.  And,  so  far  as  the  phrase 
eh  Ka0y  eh  is  concerned,  it  is  merely  a  late  and  ungram- 
matical variant  of  the  classical  [eh]  kclO'  h>a.  So  far,  too, 
from  being  absolutely  strange  and  unusual,  it  is  found 
elsewhere  in  at  least  one  passage  of  the  New  Testament 
(John  8  :  i-n),  where  we  read  that  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  "went  out  one  by  one  {eh  tcady  eh),  beginning 
from  the  eldest  even  to  the  youngest." 2 

A  diligent  search  in  the  later  and  popular  Greek  litera- 

1  Italics  ours. 

2  This  story  is  expunged  from  modern  critical  texts. 


202    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ture  of  Asia  Minor,  etc.,  would  doubtless  reveal  many 
more  instances  of  the  use  of  this  unclassical  expression. 
Lastly,  as  regards  the  question  itself,  its  evident  mean- 
ing is  that  the  disciples  apprehended  some  severe  crisis  to 
be  at  hand,  and  each  misdoubted  the  firmness  of  his  own 
courage  and  resolutions.  This  view  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  the  psychology  of  the  occasion,  and  the  reference 
to  it  is  a  characteristic  touch  thoroughly  in  accordance 
with  human  nature  as  we  find  it  in  all  ages. 

A  MUhraic  Parallel 

But  a  prototype  of  the  Christian  Eucharist  has  also 
been  found  in  the  Mithraic  mysteries  (0.  Prleiderer, 
Christusbild.  English  translation,  pp.  129  ff.t  and  Heit- 
miiller,  Taufe,  p.  46).  This  derivation  appears  to  be 
largely  based  upon  the  fact  that  bas-reliefs  representing 
the  sacred  repast  in  the  cult  of  Mithra  have  been  found 
in  recent  years  in  Bosnia  and  Rome  (see  Cumont,  Textes, 
I,  p.  176;  "Notice  sur  deux  bas-reliefs  mithriaques," 
Revue  Archceol.,  1902,  pp.  10  jfi.).  In  these  two  mystae 
are  shown  recHning  at  a  table  standing  behind  a  tripod  on 
which  small  loaves  of  bread  are  placed.  One  of  the  sur- 
rounding figures  (?  initiates)  holds  a  horn  in  his  hand.1 

M.  Cumont,  however,  refers  this  bas-relief  to  the 
third  century  A.  D.  If  this  view  be  correct,  the  sculp- 
ture lends  no  support  to  any  theory  of  the  derivation  of 
the  Eucharist  from  Mithraic  sources;  it  would,  indeed, 
rather  suggest  a  loan  from  Christianity  to  Mithraism. 

1  The  sculpture  perhaps  has  reference  to  the  banquet  which  Mithra  cel- 
ebrated along  with  Helios  (the  Sun),  after  his  work  of  rescuing  mankind 
from  the  great  deluge,  which  was  followed  by  a  general  conflagration,  and 
before  his  return  to  heaven. 

In  the  supper  of  the  fully  developed  Mithraic  mysteries,  as  depicted  on 
the  bas-relief  (reverse)  found  at  Heddernheim,  Mithra  stands  behind  the 
slain  bull  holding  a  rkyton  (drinking-horn)  and  receiving  from  Helios  a 
bunch  of  grapes,  a  symbol  of  the  divine  juice  into  which  the  blood  of  the 
victim  was  transmuted  by  celestial  alchemy.  This  is  rather  an  example 
of  a  conversion  of  blood  into  wine  (grape-juice). 


TAUROBOLIA  AND  CRIOBOLIA  OF  MYSTERIES    203 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  no  really  complete  and 
authentic  description  of  the  Mithraic  cult-supper.  The 
brief  notice  of  it  given  by  Justin  Martyr,  who  says 
(Apol.y  I,  66)  that  "the  wicked  demons  (ol  irovripol  hal- 
/xoz/e?)  have  imitated  [the  Eucharist]  in  the  mysteries  of 
Mithra,  commanding  the  same  thing  to  be  done,"  1  does 
not  carry  us  very  far  in  our  search  for  "origins."  The 
meal  may  have  had  (like  the  Eucharist)  a  sacramental 
character;  but  there  seems  to  have  been  nothing  about 
it  reminiscent,  or  commemorative,  of  a  death  or  sacrifice, 
which  is  one  chief  characteristic  of  the  Christian  institu- 
tion. 

The  Taurobolia  and  Criobolia  of  Asian  Mysteries 

TJiis  last-named  objection,  however,  has  been  met 
by  Pfleiderer  (op.  cit.,  p.  131)  with  the  following  argu- 
ment: "Though  there  is  no  parallel  in  the  banquet  of 
Mithras  to  this  blood-symbolism  of  the  Christian  sacra- 
ment, one  is  certainly  found  in  the  blood-baptism  of  the 
taurobolia  [bull-slaying]  and  the  criobolia  [ram-slaying] 
which  belongs  to  the  mysteries  of  Cybele  and  perhaps 
also  to  those  of  Mithras"  2  In  the  former  of  these  cere- 
monies a  bull  was  slain  on  a  latticed  platform  and  its 
blood  was  allowed  to  fall  down  upon  a  niystes  lying  in  a 
pit  below.  This  was  a  very  ancient  practise  in  western 
Asia,  and  was  carried  on  in  the  sanctuaries  of  Ma  and 
Anahita  long  before  the  rise  of  Mithraism.  It  was  based 
upon  the  wide-spread  notion  among  primitive  races  that 
the  blood  is  the  vehicle  of  the  spiritual  life.3    M.  Cumont 

1  He  says,  however,  that  "bread  and  a  cup  of  water"  were  used  instead 
of  bread  and  wine. 

2  Italics  ours. 

3  Sham  ritual-murder  was  probably  practised  in  the  mysteries  of  Mithra 
(see  Frazer,  Golden  Bough,  1900,  pp.  445/.;  Dieterich,  M ithrasliturgie,  pp. 
164/.).  Indeed,  the  Emperor  Commodus  is  said  (Vita  Commodi,  IX)  to 
have  actually  murdered  a  man  at  one  of  the  celebrations.  It  was  also  prob- 
ably the  case  in  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus,  though  generally  the  victim  was 
an  animal,  which  was  torn  in  pieces  and  eaten  raw. 


204    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

writes  (The  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  p.  181)  of  its  meaning 
in  Mithraism:  "But,  under  the  influence  of  the  Mazdean 
beliefs  regarding  the  future  life,  a  more  profound  sig- 
nificance was  attributed  to  this  baptism  of  blood.  In 
taking  it  the  devotees  no  longer  imagined  they  acquired 
the  strength  of  the  bull;  it  was  no  longer  a  renewal  of 
physical  strength  that  the  life-sustaining  liquid  was  now 
thought  to  communicate,  but  a  renovation,  temporary 
or  even  perpetual,  of  the  human  soul."  But  this  cere- 
mony was  no  part  of  the  original  Mithraic  cult,  and  it 
was  only  introduced  in  the  second  century  A.  D.  into 
that  of  Cybele,  from  whence  it  passed  into  the  later 
Mithraic  system.  And  this  fact  at  once  precludes  all 
derivation  of  the  Christian  sacraments  from  Mithraism. 

A  Parallel  from  Mexico 

A  "parallel,"  if  not  a  source,  has  been  found  in  Mexico 
by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  who  says  (Christianity  and  Myth- 
ology, p.  408)  that  there  the  sacred  tree  was  "made  into  a 
cross  on  which  was  exposed  a  baked  dough  image  of  a 
saviour-god,  and  this  [image]  was,  after  a  time,  climbed 
for,  taken  down,  and  sacramentally  eaten."  This  passage 
at  first  sight  reads  very  much  like  a  blend  of  a  eucha- 
ristic  and  a  crucifixion  narrative;  but  on  reference  to 
Mr.  H.  H.  Bancroft's  Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States 
of  North  America,  from  which  it  is  professedly  taken,1 
we  find  it  stated  in  vol.  II,  p.  321,  that  at  the  festival 
of  Huitzilopochtli,  the  Mexican  god  of  war,  a  life-sized 
image  of  the  god  was  made  of  wickerwork  and  covered 
with  dough  made  of  amaranth  and  other  seeds.  A  paper 
cap  set  with  plumes  was  then  put  upon  the  head  of  this 
idol. 

Again,  the  author  says  (pp.  330  and  331)  that  the  Te- 
panecs  had  a  festival  in  which  "a  bird  of  dough ':  was 

1  Mr.  Robertson  (ist  ed.)  gave  the  reference  as  pp.  386  and  509.     But  this 
was  clearly  an  error. 


THE  COMMON  TERMS  205 

placed  at  the  top  of  a  huge  tree,  and  then  "women 
dressed  in  the  finest  garments,  and  holding  small  dough 
idols  in  their  hands,  danced  round  the  pole,  while  the 
youths  struggled  wildly  to  reach  and  knock  down  the 
dough  image."  When  thus  resolved  into  its  two  original 
and  constituent  parts,  and  stripped  of  the  imaginative 
additions — "the  sacred  tree  formed  into  a  cross,"  etc. 
— the  story  loses  even  its  superficial  resemblance  to  the 
narratives  of  the  crucifixion  and  institution  of  the  Eu- 
charist. Moreover,  it  is  a  far  cry  from  Palestine  to 
Mexico,  and  the  parallel,  such  as  it  is,  cannot  have  had 
any  suggestive  value  for  either  Jews  or  early  Christians. 
In  addition  to  this  fact,  there  is  really  very  little  likeness 
and  absolutely  no  correspondence  in  meaning  between 
these  ceremonies  and  the  Gospel  events. 

The  Common  Terms 

But  the  great  gulf  which  exists  between  the  Christian 
scheme  and  the  various  mystery-cults,  even  in  their  highest 
and  best  forms,  is  still  more  clearly  shown  by  the  differ- 
ence in  meanings  attached  to  the  technical  terms  which 
are  common  to  both.  Thus,  the  term  /jLvarripiov,  "mys- 
tery" (pi.,  fjLva-Trjpca) ,  which  is  found  in  Mark  4  :  11;  Ro- 
mans n  :  25;  16  :  25  and  26;  I  Cor.  2  :  7,  etc.,  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  in  the  sense  of  a  secret  which 
can  only  be  known  through  a  revelation  from  God.  In 
the  mystery-cults  the  whole  idea  underlying  the  term  is 
merely  that  of  concealment  from  the  uninitiated.  Thus 
the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
is  termed  (Romans  16  :  25)  a  fivaTijpiov  'xpovoi^  alcoviocs 
creaiyfAevov,  $avepa)9ev  Be  vvv,  while  in  the  Eleusinia  and 
kindred  systems  nv<TTr)pia  stands  for  the  knowledge  of 
certain  secret  rites  which  have  a  magical  efficacy  in  pro- 
moting man's  prosperity  in  both  temporal  and  spiritual 
affairs. 

Again,  in  the  mysteries  a  man  was  pronounced  "per- 


206    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

feet"  (re'Xeto?)  when  the  ritual  ceremonies  of  his  initia- 
tions had  all  been  duly  performed  and  he  knew  the 
secrets  which  underlay  the  whole  of  the  proceedings. 

In  the  Gospels,  on  the  contrary,  where  each  disciple 
is  enjoined  to  be  " perfect"  even  as  his  Father  in  heaven 
is  perfect,  the  word  has  an  ethical  content  wholly  want- 
ing in  the  former;  those  Christians  only  are  " perfect" 
who  have  duly  ordered  their  lives  according  to  the  divine 
precepts  and  model  as  set  forth  in  Jesus  Christ  {Romans 
12  :  2). 

Once  more,  in  the  mystery-cults  (ramjpCa  ("safety," 
" salvation")  was  merely  a  rescuing  of  the  individual 
from  the  pressure  of  such  burdens  upon  the  soul  as  the 
thought  of  the  brevity  of  life  and  the  dark  shadow  of 
an  ever-impending  death  and  the  dim  prospect  beyond 
the  grave.  By  the  mere  union  of  the  life  essence  of  the 
initiate  with  that  of  the  cult-god  he  was  secured  against 
these  things.  And  this  happy  result  was  wholly  brought 
about  "by  the  exact  performance  of  sacred  ceremonies" 
(Cumont),  and  such  a  union,  once  obtained,  was,  in  its 
character  and  effects,  indelible;  it  could  not  be  blotted 
out  or  annulled.  This  concept  of  divine  union  is  espe- 
cially notable  from  the  absence  of  any  high  moral  ideal 
or  practise.  "We  have  no  reason  to  think,"  observes 
Professor  Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experiences  of 
St.  Paul,  p.  87),  "that  those  who  claimed  salvation 
through  Isis  or  Mithras  were  much  better  than  their 
neighbours.  They  felt  secure  of  the  help  of  their  patron 
deity  in  the  affairs  of  life  and  the  future  world,  but  they 
did  not,  therefore,  live  at  a  higher  level." 

In  the  New  Testament  use  of  the  word  o-coTTipia,  on 
the  contrary,  the  term  is  full  of  moral  implications  and 
conditions  from  which  it  cannot  be  detached.  Those 
disciples  who  have  entered  upon  the  state  of  safety 
henceforth  are  debtors  {ofaiXerai)  "not  to  live  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh"  {Romans  8  :  12;   cf.  II  Cor.  5  :  14  and 


THE  COMMON  TERMS  207 

15);  and  if  they  fail  wilfully  and  persistently  in  this  ob- 
ligation they  ipso  facto  cease  to  continue  in  that  state  of 
safety. 

Again,  the  law  of  admission  to  the  mysteries  of  Eleu- 
sis  required  that  a  man  should  be  "pure  and  pious  and 
good"  (ayvbs  /cal  evae/3rj<;  teal  aya66$]  see  Foucart,  As- 
sociations religieuses,  pp.  146  Jff.).  But  what  did  these 
words  connote  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and  others  of 
that  period?  'Ayvos,  "pure,"  or  "chaste,"  merely  meant 
in  the  mysteries  that  candidates  for  initiation  must  ob- 
serve continence  for  a  few  days  and  abstain  from  cer- 
tain kinds  of  food.  It  was  rather  a  Levitical  than  a 
Christian  purity  which  was  demanded. 

Yet  again,  a  man  was  euo-e/3^?,  "pious,"  when  he  had 
duly  performed  all  the  rites  of  his  special  cult.  Of  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  implications  of  the  word,  so  familiar 
to  us  in  these  later  days  after  more  than  eighteen  cen- 
turies of  Christian  teaching,  there  were  absolutely  none. 

Finally,  the  term  ayados,  "good,"  was  then  in  com- 
mon use  for  describing  a  man  who  was,  in  a  civic  sense, 
a  good  citizen,  a  man  public-spirited  and  liberal  with  his 
wealth  or  services.  If  well-born  and  honourable,  too,  he 
was  fcaXo/cayados — "a  perfect  gentleman."  This,  it  will 
be  seen,  refers  purely  to  a  worldly  standard  of  excellence, 
desirable  enough  in  its  way,  but  not  going  very  far,  fall- 
ing short,  in  any  case,  of  what  we  would  now  call  "good- 
ness."   But  this  was  the  highest  ideal  of  the  pagan.1 

1  For  an  excellent  and  quite  recent  treatment  of  the  subject  of  this 
chapter,  see  The  Christian  Eucharist  and  the  Pagan  Cults  (Bohlen  Lectures, 
U.  S.  A.,  1913),  by  W.  M.  Groton,  S.T.D. 


CHAPTER  XI 

GETHSEMANE.   THE  BETRAYAL  AND  ARREST.   THE 
YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED 

After  singing  the  "hymn"  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
Last  Supper,  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  we  are  told,  left  the 
upper  room  and,  issuing  from  the  city  by  the  gate  of 
the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  was  identical  with  or 
near  to  the  present  Bab  Sitti  Maryam  (St.  Stephen's 
Gate),  crossed  the  Kedron  valley  and  entered  the  groves 
at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  an  enclosed  portion 
of  which  is  said  to  have  borne  the  name  Gethsemane. 

Gethsemane 

But  at  this  point  we  are  again  met  by  the  mythical 
critic.  Drews  says  roundly  (The  Witnesses  to  the  His- 
toricity of  Jesus,  1912,  p.  204):  "There  was  probably  no 
such  place  as  Gethsemane."  And  again  (ibid.,  pp.  208 
and  209):  "Even  the  name  ' Gethsemane,'  which  is  no- 
where else  found  as  the  name  of  a  place,  is,  as  Smith  ob- 
serves, inspired  by  Isaiah.  .  .  .  Here  [63  :  2]  we  have 
a  clear  relation  to  the  abandonment  of  Jesus  on  Geth- 
semane, and  his  comforting  by  an  angel  (Luke  22  :  43), 
and  the  reference  to  the  blood  (Luke  22  :  44)  accords. 
Jahveh's  vengeance  on  the  Gentiles  is  transformed  in 
the  Gospels  into  the  contrary  act  of  the  self-oblation  of 
Jesus;  and,  whereas  in  Isaiah  it  is  the  wine  of  anger  and 
vengeance  that  flows  from  the  press,  here  it  is  the  oil  of 
healing  and  salvation  that  pours  from  the  press  (gath) 
over  the  peoples" — truly  a  great  and  incredible  trans- 
formation of  the  prophet's  words  and  meaning ! 

208 


GETHSEMANE  209 

Professor  Smith  continues  (Ecce  Deus,  191 2,  pp.  295 
and  296)  in  a  similar  strain:  "As  to  the  place  called  Geth- 
semane,  i.  e.,  ' wine-press  [?]  of  olives,'  no  one  knows 
anything  whatever  about  it,  and  its  topographic  real- 
ity appears  highly  problematic.  The  conjecture  seems 
to  be  close  at  hand  that  the  name  is  purely  symboli- 
cal, suggested  by  the  famous  passage  in  Isaiah  [63  :  2]: 
'  Thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine-vat 
(gath).'  This  latter  term  means  wine-press,  and  appar- 
ently never  anything  but  wine-press.1  The  combination 
of  Gathshemani  (wine-press  of  oil,  or  olives)  is  singular, 
and  it  seems  very  unlikely  as  the  name  of  a  place.  But 
why  may  it  not  mean  simply  '  wine-press  of  Olivet '  ?  As 
Wellhausen  well  remarks,  the  word  is  not  Aramaic  but 
Hebrew.  Such  a  name  must  have  descended  through 
centuries,  if  it  was  a  name  at  all.  This  it  would  hardly 
have  done  had  it  not  designated  some  place  of  impor- 
tance, and  in  that  case  we  should  probably  have  heard 
of  it.  It  is  very  unlikely,  then,  that  there  was  any  place 
named  wine-press  of  olives.  The  symbolism  seems  per- 
fectly obvious.  The  wine-press  is  that  of  Isaiah  63  :  2 
— the  wine-press  of  divine  suffering.  This  explanation 
seems  so  perfectly  satisfying  in  every  way  that  it  ap- 
pears gratuitous  to  look  further.  That  the  evangelist  was 
thinking  of  Isaiah  seems  clear  from  his  separating  Jesus 
at  this  point  from  his  disciples:  'I  have  trodden  the 
wine-press  alone,  and  of  the  people  no  man  was  with 
me'\  and  (the  later?)  Luke  adds,  'Here  there  appeared 
to  him  an  angel  from  heaven,  strengthening  him/  2  not 
human  but  divine  help  was  needed.  Herewith  is  ex- 
plained the  'impremonition'  of  the  disciples,  which  Well- 
hausen finds  so  puzzling  and  inconsistent  (Ev.  Matt.,  p. 

1  Professor  Smith  here  adds  a  note  in  which  the  following  occurs:  "The 
word  gath  may  sometimes  have  been  used  inaccurately  for  the  word  bad 
(d),  which  regularly  means  'olive-press'  "  ! 

2  Vss.  43  and  44  of  chap.  22  are  not  found  in  some  of  the  oldest  and  best 
codices  and  are  therefore  considered  by  many  critics  an  interpolation. 


210  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

130).  The  whole  scene  is  designed  to  pathetise  the  idea 
of  a  suffering  god  and  at  the  same  time  to  fulfil  the 
words  of  the  prophet  in  a  far  higher  than  the  prophet's 
sense.  There  was  need  thus  to  import  pathos,  for  the 
notion  of  suffering  was  naturally  so  foreign  to  the  idea 
of  God,  though  native  to  the  idea  of  man,  that  the  repre- 
sentation ran  the  risk  of  appearing  unreal,  a  transparent 
make-believe.  Hence  the  increasing  care  with  which 
each  succeeding  evangelist  elaborates  the  details  of  the 
wondrous  picture — with  sublime  success." 

Before  discussing  these  two  practically  identical  views 
as  to  the  meaning  of  Gethsemane  and  of  the  scene 
depicted  in  the  Gospels  as  taking  place  in  that  garden 
(grove),  we  may,  perhaps,  interpose  here  a  few  general 
remarks  bearing  upon  Isaiah  63,  which  figures  so  promi- 
nently in  the  theories  of  both  Drews  and  Smith.  This 
chapter  forms  a  portion  of  the  latter  part  of  our  present 
book  of  Isaiah  (chaps.  40-66),  which  has  been  named 
by  Konig  "The  Exiles'  Book  of  Consolation,"  and  consists 
of  a  number  of  sections  referring  to  the  sufferings  of  the 
ideal  "  Servant  of  Jahveh,"  who  is  regarded  by  almost 
all  modern  critical  scholars  as  being,  primarily  at  least, 
the  pious  section  of  the  Jewish  community,  suffering  un- 
deservedly, as  it  would  seem,  through  the  faults  of  the 
idolatrous  and  degenerate  mass  of  their  fellow  country- 
men in  exile.  Setting  aside  this  view,  which  is  too  in- 
tricate for  full  discussion  here,  we  will  now  turn,  in  the 
first  place,  to  the  question  of  the  derivation  and  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "  Gethsemane." 

Gethsemane  is  compounded  (Lightfoot  and  others)  of 
A?  (gath)}  "a  press,"  and  JB#  (shemen),  "oil."  Professor 
Smith  appears  to  hold  (Ecce  Deus,  p.  295),  that  such  a 
press  " might  be  used  for  various  purposes,"  including, 
no  doubt,  the  ex-pression  of  grapes  for  making  wine, 
his  intention  (as  also  that  of  Drews)  being  to  affiliate  the 
whole  scene  taking  place  there  with  Isaiah  63  :  2  and  3, 


GETHSEMANE  211 

where  he  thinks  the  agonies  of  a  suffering  god  are  set 
forth. 

Now,  the  regular  Hebrew  word  for  a  wine-press  is 
rPVia  {pur  ah,  Isaiah  63  :  3,  the  passage  here  referred  to; 
cf.  also  Hag.  2  :  16),  and,  although  gath  is  used  (cf.  Joel 
3  :  13;  Neh.  13  :  15;  Lam.  1  :  15)  absolutely  in  the 
sense  of  wine-press,  the  addition  here  of  the  word  she- 
men  shows  clearly  that  a  wine-press  is  not  meant  but  a 
press  for  extracting  oil  from  some  kind  of  fruit.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  olive  (the  principal  source  of  vegetable  oil), 
there  was  another  tree,  \0U  fJJ  (es  shemen),  "oleaster" 
(  ? ),  from  the  fruit  of  which  an  inferior  kind  of  oil  was 
expressed;  but  the  word  shemen  normally  signifies  olive 
oil,  as  in  Gen.  28  and  elsewhere. 

Further,  the  oil-press  differed  considerably  in  construc- 
tion and  size  from  the  wine-press.  The  former  usually 
consisted  of  a  large,  circular  trough  in  which  the  olives 
were  crushed  by  a  heavy  stone  wheel,  while  the  latter 
was  a  kind  of  narrow  stone  or  cemented  trough  in  which 
the  grapes  were  often  trodden  by  the  feet.  It  was  also, 
as  a  rule,  much  smaller  in  size  than  the  oil-press. 

Again,  the  " garden,"  or  enclosure,  called  Gethsemane 
was  situated  (Luke  22  :  39)  in  the  Kedron  valley,  prob- 
ably somewhere  near  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  so 
called  from  the  groves  of  olive-trees  which  once  covered 
its  western  slopes.  No  grapes  were  grown  there,  and  a 
wine-press,  accordingly,  would  not  be  found  on  or  near 
that  spot. 

Now,  the  above-mentioned  facts  show  clearly  that  it 
is  quite  incorrect  (1)  to  connect  Gethsemane  with  the 
wine- vat  (or  trough)  spoken  of  in  Isaiah  63  :  2  and  3, 
and  (2)  to  assert  that  the  "topographic  reality"  of  Geth- 
semane appears  highly  problematic.  Of  course,  after 
the  cutting  down  of  all  the  ancient  trees  (Jos.,  B.  J., 
VI,  1,  1)  and  the  thorough  effacement  of  many  ancient 
landmarks   by  the  Romans   during    the  great  siege  of 


212    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

A.  D.  70,  any  exact  identification  of  the  position  of  this 
grove  is  no  doubt  impracticable.  Professor  Lucien  Gau- 
tier,  however,  says  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "  Gethsemane ")  of 
the  traditional  site,  that,  while  its  authenticity  is  not 
demonstrable,  neither  is  it  wholly  improbable.  That  a 
press  for  olives  would  then  exist  at  or  near  the  foot  of 
the  hill  is  almost  certain,  and  that  any  such  enclosure 
wherein  it  was  situated  would,  sooner  or -later,  bear  the 
name  Gethsemane  is  equally  probable.  At  the  same 
time,  as  the  spot  was  not  remarkable  for  anything  else, 
it  would  in  all  likelihood  not  be  mentioned  in  any  Jew- 
ish historical  or  topographical  literature  which  has  come 
down  to  us.  Indeed,  had  not  Jesus  resorted  thither  at 
intervals  for  the  purpose  of  retirement  and  prayer,  it 
probably  would  have  remained  wholly  unchronicled  and 
unknown  to  succeeding  generations  after  the  destruction 
of  the  city.1 

Turning  now  to  the  Isaianic  prophecy,  upon  which 
both  Drews  and  Smith  lay  so  great  stress,  we  find  that 
it  seems  to  have  no  direct  or  immediate  bearing  upon 
the  scene  described  in  the  Gospels.  "Who  is  this,"  asks 
the  prophet,  "that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  dyed  gar- 
ments from  Bozrah?"  These  garments  are  stained  red 
(vs.  2),  like  the  garments  of  those  who  have  been  tread- 
ing the  red  grapes  in  the  wine-trough.  Here  there  is 
certainly  no  reference  to  an  oil-press,  where  the  fruit 
was  crushed  by  a  stone,  and  where,  moreover,  the  gar- 
ment of  any  one  stepping  into  the  press  would  contract 
not  a  red  but  a  yellow  stain  from  the  oil!  The  writer 
of  Mark  14  :  51,  therefore,  cannot  have  had  Isaiah  63 
in  his  mind  when  he  penned  the  chapter.  Neither  did 
the  Jews  of  that  or  any  other  preceding  period  refer  this 

1  Doctor  Cheyne  (Hibbert  Journal,  July,  1913,  pp.  920  and  921)  thinks  that 
"Gethsemane  is  certainly  from  Gilead  Ishmael,"  and,  moreover,  must  have 
been  brought  (as  also  the  names  Golgotha  and  Gabbatha)  by  the  north 
Arabians  in  the  great  migration  and  have  been  preserved  by  tradition ! 


THE  AGONY  IN  THE  GARDEN  213 

chapter  to  Messianic  sufferings,  but  rather  regarded  it 
as  descriptive  of  the  sufferings  of  the  faithful  remnant 
who  shared  in  the  exile  of  the  unfaithful  majority  of 
their  fellow  countrymen.1  That  the  prophecy  was,  after 
the  resurrection,  seen  by  the  evangelists  and  others  to  be 
very  applicable,  in  a  secondary  and  metaphorical  sense, 
to  the  sufferings  undergone  by  Jesus  is  another  matter, 
and  beyond  dispute. 

Neither,  again,  can  we  affirm  that  the  prophet  here  "de- 
signed to  pathetise  a  suffering  God."  A  God  pure  and 
simple  cannot  be  conceived  as  "suffering,"  though  a  god- 
man  or  an  anthropomorphic  deity  can.  But  such  suffer- 
ings as  those  undergone  by  Jesus  are  rather  the  pains  and 
sorrows  endured  by  a  highly  strung  and  sensitive  human 
nature.  There  seems,  therefore,  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
probability  of  either  the  existence  of  the  place  called 
Gethsemane  or  the  historic  nature  of  the  scene  which  is 
said  to  have  taken  place  there. 

The  Agony  in  the  Garden 

Another  objection,  however,  raised  by  both  Mr.  J.  M. 
Robertson  and  Professor  Drews  to  the  account  of  the 
agony  in  the  garden  is  that  the  scene,  as  described,  can- 
not be  historical  because  Jesus  is  stated  by  the  evangel- 
ists to  have  been  alone  the  greater  part  of  the  time  of 
his  ordeal,  and  the  three  disciples  are  said  to  have  been 
asleep.  The  reported  words  and  acts  cannot,  therefore, 
have  been  derived  from  them.  But  this  kind  of  diffi- 
culty not  unfrequently  arises  out  of  a  careless  reading 
of  the  narrative.  The  attentive  student  of  Matt.  26  : 
36-44  will  readily  see  that  (1)  Jesus  merely  went  for- 

1  The  earliest  Jewish  references  to  a  suffering  Messiah  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Talmud,  Sanh.  93b,  96b,  97a,  98a  and  b  (cf.  Justin  Martyr's  Dial.  c. 
Try.,  chaps.  68,  89/and  90).  But  these  are  all  second-century  A.  D.  refer- 
ences. That  the  idea  was  unknown  to  the  Jews  (temp.  Chr.)  is  shown  by 
Matt.  16  :  22;  Luke  18  :  34;  24  :  21;  John  12  :  34.  It  was,  later  on, 
forced  on  the  rabbins  by  Christian  polemic. 


214    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ward  a  little  (vs.  39)  from  the  disciples;  (2)  they  only 
heard  (and  reported)  fragments  of  his  prayers  and  (3) 
they  were  twice  awoke  by  him  and  would,  doubtless,  on 
each  occasion,  make  a  strong  effort  to  keep  awake  for 
some  time.  In  any  case,  it  is  evident  that  they  were 
not  all  three  asleep  and  out  of  hearing  the  whole  time. 
The  record,  indeed,  has  just  the  fragmentary  and  dis- 
jointed character  which  we  would  expect  it  to  have  un- 
der the  circumstances. 

The  Betrayal 

In  dealing  with  the  betrayal  Professor  Drews  is  very 
emphatic  in  his  criticism.  "The  thing  is  historically  so 
improbable,"  he  writes  {The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity 
of  Jesus,  p.  83),  "the  whole  story  of  the  betrayal  is  so 
absurd  historically  and  psychologically,  that  only  a  few 
thoughtless  Bible  readers  can  accept  it  with  compla- 
cency"! We  should  have  thought,  on  the  contrary, 
that  such  cases  of  treachery  and  bad  faith  on  the  part  of 
some  disappointed  adherent  towards  his  leader  were  com- 
monplaces in  history.  Let  us  look  at  the  facts.  Jesus 
had  come  to  be  regarded  by  all  his  disciples  as  the 
expected  Messiah  (Mark  8  :  29;  Matt.  16  :  16).  Their 
Messianic  ideal,  however,  was,  like  that  of  their  con- 
temporaries, a  temporal  one — a  conquering  monarch  and 
an  earthly  sovereignty.  But  Jesus  at  once  repudiated 
this  view  as  not  his  mission  (Matt.  16  :  20  and  21; 
cf.  John  18  :  36).  The  disciples  were  disappointed  at 
first,  and  Peter  in  particular  remonstrated  with  Jesus 
(Matt.  16  :  22).  Later  on,  Judas,  the  record  says,  went 
a  step  further  and  resolved  to  give  him  up  to  the  au- 
thorities. Then,  he  perhaps  reasoned  with  himself,  if 
he  really  be  the  Messiah,  he  will  be  forced  to  act;  if  not, 
he  will  pay  the  penalty  of  his  false  pretensions.  Or  we 
may  go  further  and  hold  (as  one  of  the  evangelists  says 
plainly)  that  Judas  was  an  unprincipled  and  dishonest 


THE  BETRAYAL  215 

man  who  had  had  his  opportunity  of  redemption  and 
deliberately  rejected  it.  The  whole  matter  is  really — 
under  this  aspect — so  probable,  and  so  natural  psycholog- 
ically, that  it  seems  that  every  one  should  easily  grasp 
the  situation. 

But  Professor  Drews's  sense  of  justice  is  also  aroused. 
" Imagine,"  he  says  (ibid.,  p.  83),  "the  ideal  man  Jesus 
knowing  that  one  of  his  disciples  is  about  to  betray  him, 
and  thus  forfeit  his  eternal  salvation,  yet  doing  nothing 
to  restrain  the  miserable  man,  but  rather  confirming 
him  in  it!"  How  does  Professor  Drews  know  all  this? 
In  many  places  in  the  narrative  we  are  told  that  Jesus 
declared  he  knew  what  was  coming  upon  him,  and  he 
even  openly  avowed  (Matt.  26  :  21-25)  that  he  knew 
who  would  bring  it  about  and  the  consequences  to  that 
man  of  his  act  (Mark  14  :  20  and  21;  Matt.  26  :  23-25). 
Judas,  it  is  clear,  was  fairly  warned  and,  for  aught  we 
know  to  the  contrary,  may  have  received  other  intima- 
tions that  his  purpose  was  no  secret.  In  either  case, 
Jesus,  who  knew  what  was  in  man,  no  doubt  rightly 
concluded  that  remonstrance  and  appeal  were  vain  with 
a  man  of  the  character  and  temperament  of  Judas.  And 
do  not  such  cases  occur  almost  every  day?  Why,  for 
instance,  does  not  God  intervene  and  directly  prevent 
us  from  falling  into  some  great  sin  when  we  are  on  the 
point  of  doing  so?  This  question  is  equally  apposite 
and  the  answer  is  the  same:  God  gives  to  all  of  us  grace 
in  due  measure  to  resist  sin  as  well  as  a  certain  amount 
of  free  choice  in  all  our  actions.  We  accept  the  helping 
grace  and  conquer  the  temptation,  or  we  reject  it  and 
perish  miserably.  And  Judas  in  this  instance  chose  the 
latter  of  these  two  alternatives. 

But  further:  "Imagine  a  Judas  demanding  money 
from  the  high  priest  for  the  betrayal  of  a  man  who  walks 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem  daily  and  whose  sojourn  at 
night  could  assuredly  be  discovered  without  any  treach- 


216    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ery !"  And  he  quotes,  with  approval,  Kautsky,  who  says 
(Der  Ursprung  des  Christentums,  1910,  p.  388):  "For 
Judas  to  have  betrayed  Jesus  is  much  the  same  as  if 
the  Berlin  police  were  to  pay  a  spy  to  point  out  to 
them  the  man  named  Bebel."  Let  us  again  look  at  the 
facts  before  indorsing  this  remark.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Jewish  authorities,  there  was  a  man  named 
Jesus  going  about  the  country  who  had  exhibited  hos- 
tility towards  them.  This  man  seemed  to  have  many 
adherents1  how  many  it  was  difficult  to  determine.  In 
any  case,  he  had  undoubtedly  come  to  be  regarded  by 
many  as  the  promised  Messiah,  and  he  himself,  it  seemed, 
might  also  have  come  to  that  conclusion.  He  threat- 
ened, therefore,  to  become  a  serious  danger  to  them  and 
their  authority,  and  something  must  evidently  be  done. 
But  what  and  how  and  when?  There  were,  we  can 
well  understand,  great  discussions  and  dissensions  in  the 
Sanhedrin.  Lawyers  like  Gamaliel  would  be  in  favour 
of  a  waiting  policy.  Probably  Jesus  had  a*  few  secret 
sympathisers  in  the  council  itself;  we  hear  of  one  or 
two  in  the  Gospels  (John  3:1;  19  :  38  and  39;  Mark 
15  :  43).  And  in  the  midst  of  all  this  confusion  and 
indecision  one  of  the  man's  adherents  suddenly  offers  to 
place  him  in  their  hands  secretly  and  without  exciting 
the  public  mind.  He  knows  of  a  quiet  spot  where  the 
man  retires  to  pray  and  meditate  away  from  the  crowds 
who  throng  him  in  the  city  and  in  the  fields  and  on  the 
highways.  His  terms,  too,  are  very  reasonable — thirty 
shekels2 — a  mere  trifle  to  the  rulers  of  a  nation  but  a  con- 
siderable amount  in  the  eyes  of  a  poor  peasant  who  had 
probably  never  handled  so  large  a  sum  before.  This  offer 
(they  would  argue)  will  solve  the  problem  without  any 
great  shock  to  the  people,  whose  temper  is  uncertain. 

1  E.  g.,  The  five  hundred;  but  great  crowds  everywhere  followed  him  and 
acclaimed  his  entry  into  the  city. 

2  About  £3,  15s.  in  English  money,  or  $19.00  in  United  States  currency 
(c/.  Ex.  21  :  32). 


THE  BETRAYAL  217 

This,  we  take  it,  was  the  natural  attitude  and  reason- 
ing of  the  Jewish  authorities.  They  wished,  no  doubt, 
when  the  arrest  was  made,  that  there  should  be  no  at- 
tempt at  a  rescue,  which,  if  successful,  might  precipitate 
a  revolution,  especially  as  the  Passover  was  near  and 
the  Jews  from  a  distance  were  already  assembling  in 
great  numbers.  As  for  Kautsky's  criticism,  we  have  no 
doubt  whatever  that  the  Berlin  police  did  pay  many 
spies,  not  to  point  out  to  them  the  man  named  Bebel, 
but  to  inform  them  of  his  acts  and  words  and  where 
they  could  best  lay  hands  upon  him  if  he  were  ever 
wanted  by  them.  There  is  nothing  novel  or  improbable 
in  the  course  of  action  as  depicted  by  the  evangelists; 
it  is,  in  fact,  the  course  pursued  in  all  ages  by  all  author- 
ities and  rulers,  whether  aristocratic  or  democratic,  civil 
or  military,  the  whole  world  over.  And  the  sudden  ac- 
ceptance of  the  offer  made  by  Judas  at  the  eleventh  hour 
was  the  very  natural  outcome  of  the  irresolution  and 
divided  opinions  and  the  uncertainty  in  which  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  and  Pharisees  found  themselves. 

As  regards  the  further  question  here  about  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  verb  paradidonai  ("to  hand  over"  or 
"betray")  and  its  relation  to  the  paredothe  ("was  given 
up"  or  "betrayed")  of  Isaiah  53  :  12,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  chap.  13,  where  the  verb  is  discussed. 

Finally,  Professor  Drews  concludes  that  "the  whole 
story  of  the  betrayal  is  a  late  invention  founded  on  that 
passage  in  the  prophet;1  and  Judas  is  not  an  historical 
personality  but,  as  Robertson  believes,  a  representative 
of  the  Jewish  people,  hated  by  the  Christians,  who  were 
believed  to  have  caused  the  death  of  the  Saviour." 

We  do  not  know  what  precise  meaning  Professor  Drews 

1  Isaiah  53  :  12.  Elsewhere,  however  (The  Christ  Myth,  p.  237),  he  says: 
"The  account  of  the  betrayal,  of  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  of  Judas's 
death  have  their  source  in  the  Old  Testament,  viz.,  in  the  betrayal  and 
death  of  Ahitophel"  1  (refs.  to  II  Sam.  17  :  23;  cf.  Zech.  11  :  12  and  Psalm 
41  :  10). 


218    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

attaches  to  the  expression  "a  late  invention";  it  is  cer- 
tain, however,  that  the  story  was  put  on  record1  (in  the 
Marcan  form)  by  A.  D.  65  at  the  latest,  a  time  when 
many  who  well  remembered  the  events  of  some  five  and 
thirty  years  previously  were  still  alive;  and  these  would 
certainly  know  whether  Judas  no  less  than  Jesus  were 
historical  and  also  whether  the  betrayal  and  death  of 
the  Saviour  were  an  actual  event  or  a  mere  supposition. 
And  the  simple  fact  that  St.  Paul  does  not  mention  the 
details  of  the  betrayal  in  any  of  his  writings  is  no  adverse 
argument  whatever  against  the  historicity  of  the  mat- 
ter. To  reason  thus — as  some  critics  persist  in  doing — ■ 
is  merely  to  abuse  the  dangerous  argumentum  e  silentio, 
which  it  is  too  frequently  the  fashion  nowadays  to  em- 
ploy in  a  reckless  manner. 

Professor  Preserved  Smith  (Hibbert  Journal,  July,  19 13, 
P-  73  S)  sees  "a  minor  though  significant  contradiction " 
in  the  statement  that  all  forsook  him  and  fled  (Mark 
14  :  50)  and  "the  assertion  that  Peter  followed."  We 
need  only  remark  here  that  it  is  clear  that  Professor 
Smith  has  but  a  small  acquaintance  with  the  psychol- 
ogy of  impulsive  people. 

The  Arrest  and  the  Young  Man  Who  Fled  Away  Naked 

We  next  come  to  another  minor  but  interesting  epi- 
sode in  the  narrative  of  the  arrest,  commonly  known  as 
"the  young  man  who  fled  away  naked"  (Mark  14  :  51 
and  52).  And  it  is  upon  this  that  Professor  W.  B.  Smith 
in  particular  pours  the  phials  of  his  critical  wrath  and 

1  The  variations  amongst  the  four  evangelists  with  regard  to  the  words 
spoken  and  the  kiss  given  at  the  time  of  the  arrest  arise  very  naturally  out 
of  the  confusion  and  terror  of  the  night.  The  remonstrance  of  Jesus  chron- 
icled by  Matthew,  'Eratpe,  4<p'  $  -rrdpei,  unnatural  under  the  circumstances 
and  almost  untranslatable,  is  thus  ingeniously  explained  by  Cheyne :  Eraipe 
should  come  after  0  irapei  and  is  a  corruption  of  a  dittographed  o  irapei. 
The  true  reading,  he  believes,  is  viroKpivei,  "thou  feignest,"  "thou  actest  a 
part"  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Judas,"  sec.  7). 


THE  YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED    219 

contempt.  "For  nearly  eighteen  hundred  years,"  he 
avers  (Ecce  Deus,  pp.  111-113),  "this  youth  has  been 
the  despair  of  exegesis.  Wellhausen  thinks  that  he  was 
merely  some  unknown  fellow  in  the  neighbourhood  who 
heard  the  racket  of  the  arrest,  jumped  out  of  bed  with 
only  a  night-robe  around  him,  and  rushed  to  the  scene 
as  young  America  hastens  to  a  dog  fight  .  .  ." ! 

But,  to  turn  to  his  criticism:  "These  verses  appear 
at  first  sight  to  be  quite  inexplicable,  and  yet  they  yield 
their  meaning  readily  enough.  We  note  that  the  term 
young  man  is  not  frequent  in  Mark;  it  occurs  only  here 
and  in  16  :  5.  In  both  cases  it  is  a  ' youth  wrapt  all 
about'  (7re/?t/3e/3\?7/zew) ;  in  this  case  in  fine  and  costly 
linen  cloth  (cnvhova),  especially  used  for  cerements;  in 
16  :  5,  in  a  white  robe  (o-toXtjv  XevKrjv).  Even  Leib- 
nitz would  have  admitted  the  two  figures  to  be  almost 
indiscernibles.  The  garment  in  both  cases  is  white,  and 
it  is  the  only  garment  (eVl  jv/jlvov,  14  :  51;  yvfiwk,  52). 
.  .  .  Are  they  related  ?  x  .  .  .  It  seems,  then,  that  we 
are  dealing  with  a  technical  expression  for  a  celestial 
personage  (cf.  Rev.  19  :  14).  .  .  .  The  celestial  per- 
sonage is  the  angel-self  of  Jewish  anthropology,  the 
Persian  ferhouer  (represented  on  an  extant  coin  as 
Sapor  II,  the  rival  of  Julian  the  Emperor),  a  kind  of 
astral  body  that  follows  along  with  Jesus,2  robed  in  white 

1  Professor  Smith  refers  here  to  Ezek.  9:2;  Daniel  10  :  5;  12:6  and  7. 
These  references,  however,  are  not  to  the  point.  The  "six  men"  (2£  Avdpfs) 
of  Ezekiel  and  "the  man  clad  in  linen  cloth"  (&.vdpunro%  ivedvfffxivos  ftixr- 
<nv)  of  Daniel  are  mere  symbolical  figures  seen  in  a  vision,  or  trance,  a  fact 
which  differentiates  them  from  the  "young  man"  seen  at  the  sepulchre 
and  the  other  young  man  whose  arrest  was  attempted  at  Gethsemane. 

2  Professor  Smith  follows  the  translation  of  the  R.  V.  But  both  this  and 
the  A.  V.  appear  to  be  wrong.  W.  and  H.  read  veavicricos  tis  <rvvrjKo\oijdei 
auT<£,  and  the  preposition  prefixed  to  the  verb,  if  it  referred  to  Jesus,  would 
be  repeated  with  the  airy — <ri>v  airrtp  (cf.  Mark  5  :  37).  What  Mark's  ex- 
pression really  means  is  that  the  young  man,  along  with  others,  followed 
Jesus.  That  is  to  say,  he  mixed  with  the  crowd,  but  was  seen  to  be  a  sus- 
picious person,  and  when  a  guard  tried  to  arrest  him  he  broke  away,  as 
it  is  related. 


220    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

linen  to  abate  its  intolerable  splendour.  The  soldiers 
try  to  seize  it,  but  it  flees  away  naked,  leaving  only  the 
linen  investiture  behind.  The  fact  that  such  an  idea 
was  not  strange  to  the  evangelists  is  clearly  witnessed 
by  Matt.  18  :  10  ('Their  angels  do  always  behold,  i.  e., 
have  access  unto,  the  face  of  my  Father').  What  does 
the  evangelist  mean  to  say  by  these  perplexing  words? 
Thus  far  he  has  represented  the  Jesus  exclusively  as  a 
God  [ !  ],  a  being  of  infinite  power;  and  now  this  divin- 
ity is  arrested  and  carried  away  to  trial,  condemnation, 
and  death !  Arrest,  judge,  condemn,  execute  a  God ! 
How  can  these  things  be?  Apparently  the  evangelist 
would  give  us  a  hint  that  he  is  not  to  be  taken  literally. 
He  would  whisper  to  his  reader:  Of  course  the  God  Jesus 
could  not  be  arrested,  but  only  the  garment  concealing 
his  divinity,  the  garment  of  flesh  that  he  has  put  on  in 
this  symbolical  narrative.  Hence  the  repeated  use  of 
the  word  naked  both  in  51  and  52.  Now,  'naked'  (<yvfi- 
vds)  is  the  equivalent  of  disembodied  when  applied  to  a 
spirit,  as  in  II  Cor.  5  :  3.1  Of  the  exact  shade  and  shape 
of  the  evangelist's  thought  we  may  not,  indeed,  be  quite 
sure,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  of  the  general  iden- 
tification of  the  'young  man'  as  a  supernatural  being.  .  .  . 
Originally  it  [the  Marcan  Gospel]  may  very  well  have 
squinted  towards  Docetism." 

On  pages  198-201  we  have  this  theory  worked  out  in 
greater  detail  and  illustrated  from  the  epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lippians  2  :  5-1 1  (cf.  also  Romans  15  :  3,  II  Cor.  8  :  9, 
and  Col.  2  :  14  and  15).  And  he  concludes  by  saying: 
"The  doctrine  [of  the  Docetic  Gnostics]  above  set  forth 
[p.  199]  may,  in  its  elaborated  form,  very  well  be  later 
than  the  Gospel,  but  it  is  manifest,  and  it  is  enough, 

1  As  applied  to  a  human  being,  however,  yvjAvbs  does  not,  in  common 
parlance,  mean  "naked,"  but  rather  "lightly  clad."  Here  (assuming  an 
actual  young  man)  it  would  signify  bereft  of  all  the  outer  garments.  St. 
Paul  certainly  employs  the  word  in  one  place  of  the  disembodied  spirit. 
But  it  is  not  the  usual  Greek  word  for  that  concept. 


THE  YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED    221 

that  the  central  idea  is  one  and  the  same — namely, 
that  on  the  cross  the  true  God,  the  Jesus,  laid  aside  the 
form  of  flesh,  temporarily  assumed,  and  escaped,  whether 
as  a  c  naked '  (yvfAvop),  disembodied  spirit  or  as  clothed 
upon  with  an  ectypal  or  spiritual  body.  That  the  ancient 
mind  shrank  from  the  notion  of  a  naked  (bodiless)  spirit 
is  seen  clearly  in  I  Cor.  15,  where  the  apostle  argues  so 
powerfully  for  a  body  for  spirit  as  well  as  a  body  for 
soul,  and  also  in  II  Cor.  5  :  1-4,  where  he  deprecates 
being  found  naked  (a  bodiless  spirit). " 

With  the  above  theory  Doctor  Cheyne  seems  (Hibbert 
Journal,  July,  1913,  pp.  921  and  922)  to  be  in  accord.  He 
writes:  "The  arguments  which  he  [Professor  Smith]  has 
adduced  seem  to  me  conclusive.  .  .  .  We  know  that 
there  are  celestial  bodies  and  bodies  terrestrial  (I  Cor. 
15  :  40),  and  in  the  Book  of  Adam  and  Eve,  translated 
from  the  Ethiopic  by  Malan  (p.  16),  God  says:  'I  made 
thee  of  the  light,  and  I  wished  to  bring  out  children  of 
the  light  from  thee.'  The  conception  is  that  of  luminous 
matter;  but  the  body  of  unveiled  heavenly  light  would 
have  been  too  dazzling  for  ordinary  human  vision.  The 
fine  white  linen  robe  was  just  what  was  requisite  to  miti- 
gate the  excess  of  light.  But  what  has  the  angelic  being 
to  do  here?  The  answer  is  that  the  Saviour,  according 
to  Mark,  was  a  divine  manifestation.  To  have  made 
him,  however,  go  about  in  a  rich  white  linen  robe  would 
have  defeated  his  object,  which  was,  at  any  rate,  quasi- 
historical.  He  determined,  therefore,  before  the  diffi- 
cult crucifixion  scene,  that  the  true  divine  Jesus  could 
not  be  arrested  and  crucified.  .  .  .  The  l young  man' 
is,  in  fact,  very  like  the  fravashi  of  the  Zoroastrians,  the 
heavenly  self." 

Professor  Smith's  highly  ingenious  theory  is  at  first 
sight  extremely  plausible.  But  after  a  careful  consid- 
eration of  it,  as  also  of  the  phenomena  following  upon 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  (to  which  he  appeals  in  sup- 


222     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

port  of  it),  we  cannot  see  any  real  grounds  for  its  accept- 
ance. Had  Mark's  narrative  alone  come  down  to  us, 
it  might,  perhaps,  have  been  more  convincing.  But  let 
us,  first  of  all,  compare  his  story  with  that  of  the  other 
evangelists. 

Mark  says  that  the  women  who  visited  the  tomb  saw 
a  "young  man"  iyeavlcKov)  clothed  in  a  white  garment 
sitting  on  the  right  side  of  it.  This  apparition  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  Matthew  (28  :  2)  to  have  been  that  of 
an  "angel  of  the  Lord"  (ayyeXos  Kvpiov1)  who  had  some 
time  previously  descended  from  heaven  and  rolled  back 
the  stone  from  the  doorway  of  the  tomb  and  sat  upon 
it.  Turning  next  to  the  Lucan  and  Johannine  versions, 
we  find  some  variations.  The  former  authority  says 
that  "two  men"2  (avtyes  Bvo)  appeared  suddenly.  The 
latter,  on  the  other  hand,  differs  considerably  here;  it 
states  that  Mary  Magdalene  alone,  on  her  second  visit, 
stooped  and  looked  into  the  tomb  and  saw  "two  angels 
in  white"  (Bvo  ayyeXovs  ev  Xevicofc)  sitting  at  either  end 
of  the  spot  where  the  body  had  lain. 

Now,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  apparition  which  Mark 
describes  as  a  "young  man"  Matthew  (who  wrote  very 
closely  upon  him)  defines  as  an  "angel  of  the  Lord." 
Similarly,  the  two  men  of  Luke  are  described  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  as  "angels."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
both  this  young  man  of  Mark  and  the  two  men  of 
Luke  were  regarded  by  the  Christians  of  apostolic  times 

1  There  is,  unfortunately,  some  ambiguity  about  the  word  Kvpiov  ("Lord") 
here.  Professor  Smith  would,  perhaps,  argue  that  it  refers  to  Jesus  and  that 
the  phrase  means  "  the  angel  (heavenly  self)  of  the  Master  (Lord)."  But  the 
phrase  #77e\os  Kvpiov  means,  invariably,  "angel  (messenger)  of  Jahveh" 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  duplication  of  the  one  ftyyeKos 
(or  o\vfip)  in  the  Lucan  and  Johannine  traditions  also  supports  the  view  that 
it  does  not  represent  the  "heavenly  self"  of  Jesus. 

2  Angels  (dyyeXoi,  literally,  "messengers")  appear  to  be  frequently  called 
men  in  the  New  Testament  (cf.  Acts  1  :  10,  etc).  This  is  probably  because 
they  were  regarded  as  manifesting  themselves  in  human  form.  A  human 
agent  is  also  occasionally  called  an  &yye\ot  (Luke  9  :  52;  James  2  :  25,  etc.). 


THE  YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED     223 

(including  the  evangelists  themselves)  as  manifestations 
of  spiritual  beings  of  a  higher  order  of  existence  and 
quite  distinct  from  men  whether  living  or  dead.  In 
fact,  we  have  to  do  here,  not  with  a  spiritual  duplicate 
of  a  material  and  terrestrial  self,  but  with  an  ordinary 
angelophany  similar  to  those  so  frequently  referred  to  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  and  stated  therein  to  be 
"messengers  of  the  Lord." 

Again,  Professor  Smith  appears  to  be  in  some  error  with 
regard  to  the  ferhouer  (frohar),  or  fravashi,1  i.  e.,  "  heavenly 
self"  of  the  Zoroastrians,  an  idea  which  Jesus  appears  to 
sanction  in  Matt.  18  :  10  (cf.  also  Acts  12  :  15). 

This  certainly  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  "astral 
body"  of  the  ancient  or  neo-Buddhists  and  others.  The 
astral  body,  properly  so  called,  is  held  to  be  an  ethereal 
embodiment  of  the  tyvxy,  or  "lower  soul,"  which  is  be- 
lieved to  appear  occasionally  after  death  and  (it  would 
seem)  is  at  times  detachable  and  visible  during  life  in 
the  form  of  a  facsimile  (double)  of  the  person  of  whom 
it  forms  a  part.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  equivalent  of  what  is 
commonly  known  as  the  "ghost"  of  the  deceased.  The 
fravashi,  on  the  other  hand,  bore  almost  exactly  the 
same  relation  to  the  individual  to  whom  it  belonged  as 
the  celestial  'ISea  ("Idea")  of  Plato  bore  to  its  terres- 
trial and  material  copy,  or  counterpart  (see  M.  Haug, 
The  Language,  Writings,  and  Religion  of  the  Parsis,  pp. 
206,  129).2 

Moreover,  the  "heavenly  self,"  or  spiritual  duplicate, 
was  neither  embodied  in  the  earthly  clay  of  its  copy  nor 
(it  would  seem)  accompanied  it,  but  apparently  lived  in 

1In  Professor  Moulton's  Early  Zoroastrianism  (Hibb.  Lects.,  191 2)  these 
figures  are  traced  back  to  a  combination  of  ancestor-worship  and  the  belief 
in  the  external  soul.  See  also  Zend-Avesta,  Darmsteter  (1883),  part  2,  p.  179, 
and  Tide's  Gesch.  der  Relig.  im  Alt.  (1896-1903),  II,  256,  where  a  different 
view  is  taken. 

2  These  frohars,  or  fravashis,  acted  as  "protectors"  or  as  (in  a  sense) 
"guardian  angels"  of  their  terrestrial  duplicates. 


224    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

heaven  ("in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the 
face  of  my  Father,"  i.  e.,  they  are  continually  there, 
Matt.  18  :  10).  At  least  this  seems  to  have  been  the 
Jewish  view  of  the  matter.  The  astral  body,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  embodied  in  the  person  on  earth,  and  after  death 
persists  upon  the  "astral  plane,"  an  intermediate  etheric 
state  of  being  above  the  earth  plane  but  below  the 
heavenly  (metethereal)  condition. 

Again,  Professor  Smith  seems  to  have  misunderstood 
St.  Paul  (I  Cor.  15  :  40  and  44),  whose  "spiritual  body" 
(o-cofia  irvevixaTiKov)  is  to  be  a  new  and  (?  final)  post- 
resurrection  embodiment  of  the  spirit  (Trvev/jia),  while  his 
"natural  (psychical)  body"  (<rw/xa  ^rvx^ov)  appears  to  be 
identical  with  the  body  of  flesh  which  forms  a  man's 
vehicle,  or  embodiment,  while  ne  is  upon  earth.1  This 
fact,  indeed,  entirely  distinguishes  the  concept  of  a  spir- 
itual body  from  both  the  "heavenly  self"  (frohar,  or 
fravashi)  of  the  ancient  Persians  and  the  astral  body  of 
the  Buddhists  and  modern  theosophists. 

From  these  and  other  considerations  which  we  have 
not  space  to  particularise  here,  it  seems  clear  that  Mark 
cannot  be  referring  in  this  story  (14  :  51  and  52)  to  a 
duplicate  and  spiritual  or  heavenly  self  of  Jesus  who 
attended  the  material  and  earthly  Jesus,  and  finally  fled 
from  him  either  when  he  was  arrested  in  the  garden  or 
just  before  his  crucifixion,2  but  that  he  means  some  actual 

theosophists,  however,  appear  to  identify  the  "psychical  body"  with 
an  immaterial  "double"  (astral  body)  existing  in  the  fleshly  (sarcical)  body 
of  our  present  state. 

2  The  Docetce,  it  will  be  remembered,  regarded  the  spiritual  being  who  left 
Jesus  at  the  crucifixion  not  exactly  as  the  heavenly  self  but  as  the  aeon  Chris- 
tus  who  had  joined  himself  to  Jesus  at  his  baptism.  Doctor  Cheyne  thinks 
(Hibbert  Journal,  July,  1913,  p.  922)  that  Smith's  view  of  this  young  man 
sheds  a  light  upon  the  "word  from  the  cross"  (Mark  15  :  34  and  parallel). 
If  so,  then  'EXorf  (said  by  Mark  to  be  equivalent  to  Qe6s  nov)  is  wrongly 
stated.  The  heavenly  self,  even  if  0e?os  in  its  ultimate  nature,  was  never 
6e6s.  Matthew  writes  'HXf  =  Qe4  fjuov  (27  :  46).  Mark,  it  will  be  noticed, 
uses  the  vernacular  Aramaic. 


THE  YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED    225 

young  man  who  happened  to  be  in  Gethsemane  at  the 
time  of  the  arrest  and  fled,  as  did  the  disciples  themselves, 
when  he  was  seized  by  the  soldiers. 

Finally,  we  can  see  no  valid  historical  or  other  objection 
to  this  last-named  view  of  the  episode.  Matthew  and 
Mark  describe  a  " multitude,"  or  "crowd"  (o%^o?),  as 
coming  to  arrest  Jesus;  Luke  uses  the  same  term;  while 
John  (18  :  3)  speaks  of  a  "band"  (cnrelpav1).  Now,  it  is 
most  probable  that  the  Jewish  authorities  were  careful 
to  impress  upon  Pilate  the  urgency  of  the  matter.  Jesus 
had  acknowledged  that  he  was  the  Messiah  and  prob- 
ably a  king;  consequently,  a  formidable  Messianic  in- 
surrection was  about  to  take  place.  In  that  case  Pilate 
would  undoubtedly  send  a  sufficiently  strong  force  to 
Gethsemane  to  insure  the  arrest  of  Jesus  and  to  nip  in 
the  bud  any  attempt  at  rescue  or  violence  on  the  part 
of  the  people.2  The  measured  tramp  of  troops  through 
the  streets  at  so  late  an  hour  would  attract  attention, 
and  doubtless  more  than  one  man  "jumped  out  of  bed, 
with  only  a  night-robe  around  him,  and  rushed  to  the 
scene,"  as  Professor  Smith  somewhat  contemptuously 
phrases  it.  He  rightly  rejects  Professor  Bacon's  para- 
phrase ("But  a  certain  man  was  there,  who  had  followed 
him  thither  from  his  bed,  having  the  sheet  wrapped 
around  him"),  but  he  is  equally  wrong  in  his  own  inter- 
pretation of  (TvvT]fco\oi>0ei  avrw.  The  imperfect  tense  of 
a  verb  has  not  generally  the  meaning  "  was  habitually  " 
performing  an  act;  neither  is  there  any  reference  here  to 
the  heavenly  self  in  the  form  of  a  young  man  following 
Jesus  about.    The  verb  "was  following"  here  means,  as 

1  J.  e.,  a  manipulus,  which  consisted  at  that  time  of  two  centuries,  or 
(about)  two  hundred  men.  This  would  probably  not  include  the  body  of 
Jewish  temple  police  sent  with  the  Roman  force.  The  alternative  marginal 
translation  calls  it  a  cohort  (cf.  Acts  10  :  1),  which  would  mean  from  five 
hundred  to  six  hundred  men. 

2  This  is  not  directly  so  stated;  but  it  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  Johan- 
nine  narrative. 


226  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

we  have  pointed  out,  that  the  young  man — after  the  dis- 
ciples had  scattered  amongst  the  trees — had  mingled  with 
the  throng  who  were  escorting  Jesus  away  and  was  ac- 
companying them  to  see  what  further  transpired.  One 
or  more  of  the  soldiers  or  the  temple  guard,  however, 
suspecting  that  he  was  probably  an  accomplice  of  Jesus, 
attempted  to  arrest  him  also.  The  tense  here  indicates 
action  extending  over  some  time,  and  really  unfinished, 
not  merely  momentary  and  completed,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  aorist.  Probably  the  party  had  gone  a  little  distance 
before  the  presence  of  a  suspicious  stranger  was  noticed. 

There  is  no  doubt,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Zahn's 
identification  of  the  young  man  with  Mark  himself  is 
precarious.  Still,  it  is  not  impossible.  The  reference  of 
Keim  and  others  (so  also,  recently,  S.  Reinach,  Orpheus, 
pp.  216  and  217)  to  Amos  2  :  16  as  the  source  of  the 
"legend"  does  not,  as  Smith  says,  explain  the  origin 
of  the  story.  This  prophecy  was  not  a  very  promi- 
nent one  in  Jewish  literature,  neither  had  it  any  sugges- 
tive Messianic  connexions  in  after  years.  Besides  this, 
Mark  (unlike  Matthew)  is  not  given  to  seeking  "fulfil- 
ments" of  prophecy  in  every  incident  connected  with 
the  life  or  sayings  of  Jesus.  The  fact  is,  the  plain,  lit- 
eral sense  of  this  story  is  perfectly  acceptable,  much  more 
so,  indeed,  than  any  occult  interpretation  such  as  Pro- 
fessor Smith  here  offers. 

With  regard  to  the  "linen  cloth,"  a  wide  garment  of 
linen  (J^D)  was  worn  over  the  body  by  all  classes,  under 
the  over-clothes.  This  garment  is  called,  in  the  LXX 
(Judges  14  :  12  and  13;  Pro  v.  31  :  24),  aiv&cbv,  the  very 
word  used  here  by  the  evangelist.  Or  perhaps  we  might 
regard  the  sindon  here  as  a  night-wrapper  of  fine  linen 
at  that  time  often  worn  by  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine.1 
In  either  case  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  the  man 

1  Herodotus,  II,  95,  speaks  of  the  atvdibp  as  the  usual  night-dress  of  the 
Egyptians. 


THE  YOUNG  MAN  WHO  FLED  AWAY  NAKED    227 

being  abroad  in  the  groves  of  Gethsemane  during  a  spring 
night  with  only  his  usual  (working)  undergarment  or  per- 
haps his  night-wrapper  upon  him.1  The  city  was  at  this 
time  under  the  influence  of  the  excitement  and  ferment 
of  the  approaching  Passover,  and  restless  or  adventurous 
spirits  would  probably  not  be  abed.  A  further  argument 
against  Professor  Smith's  ferhouer  would  be  the  fact,  al- 
ready referred  to,  that  Mark  never  anywhere  else  even 
hints  at  a  " heavenly  self"  accompanying  Jesus,  and  the 
present  Gospel,  even  if  it  be  (which  is  doubtful)  a  re- 
vised edition  of  an  older  (and  ?  Aramaic)  version,  can- 
not by  any  stretch  of  imagination  be  said  to  " squint" 
even  in  the  smallest  degree  at  Docetism. 

1  John  18  :  18,  it  is  true,  says  that  the  night  was  cold.  Still,  the  man 
would  be,  speaking  technically,  "naked"  if  he  had  his  usual  day  under- 
garment left  when  any  wrapper  put  over  it  was  snatched  away. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE    TRIALS.      PETER.      PILATE.      LITHOSTROTON- 
GABBATHA.      ANNAS   AND   CAIAPHAS 

The  Trials 

An  outstanding  difference  between  the  "  Chris t-myth" 
and  the  myths  of  all  the  numerous  " suffering  saviours" 
of  cult-worship  is  the  fact  that  the  former  has  a  detailed 
description  of  an  impressive  trial,1  while  the  various 
mythic  sun-gods,  or  vegetation-spirits,  who  have  been  so 
freely  designated  as  "  saviours,"  died,  or  were  put  to 
death,  without  any  pretense  of  the  kind. 

The  narrative  of  the  trial,  or  trials,  of  Jesus,  however, 
is  regarded  by  Professor  Drews  and  the  other  mythi- 
cists  as  a  part  of  the  process  of  quasi-historicising  the 
myth  and  as  due  wholly  to  the  inventive  genius  of  the 
early  Christians.  But  it  is  very  evident,  at  any  rate  to 
the  careful  reader  who  is  well  acquainted  with  both  the 
Jewish  and  Roman  judicial  systems,  that  if  the  trials,  as 
described  by  the  evangelists,  closely  agree  with  Jewish 
and  Roman  methods  of  procedure  in  such  cases,  due 
allowance  being  made  for  the  irregularities  and  haste 
which,  under  such  special  circumstances,  would  be  likely 
to  characterise  them,  a  powerful  argument  is  furnished 
for  the  actual  historicity  of  the  whole  affair.   . 

Now,  the  entire  procedure,  as  set  forth  in  the  Gospels, 
occupies  four  distinct  stages:   (i)  A  preliminary  exami- 

1  As  a  discussion  of  the  historico-legal  aspect  of  the  trials  of  Jesus  does 
not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  work,  the  reader  is  referred,  for  a  full 
discussion  of  them,  to  The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ:  A  Legal  Monograph,  by- 
Doctor  A.  Taylor  Innes,  and  the  excellent  little  book,  The  Trial  of  Jesus 
Illustrated  from  Talmud  and  Roman  Law,  by  S.  Buss,  LL.B. 

223 


THE  TRIALS  229 

nation  of  a  semi-private  character  before  Annas  (Hanan) 
previous  to  a  delivery  to  the  Sanhedrin.  (2)  The  actual 
Jewish  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  as  the  chief  tribunal 
of  judicial  administration  (cf.  Num.  11  :  16;  Jos.,  Ant., 
XIV,  9,  2),  presided  over  on  this  occasion  by  Caiaphas.1 
The  charges  here  brought  against  Jesus  may  be  com- 
prised under  two  heads:  (a)  false  teaching  and  (b) 
blasphemy.  (3)  The  examination  before  the  Roman 
procurator,  together  with  (according  to  Luke)  an  irrregu- 
lar  interview  with  Herod  Antipas.  Jesus  was,  in  the 
former  of  these,  accused  by  the  Jews  of  perverting  the 
nation  by  (a)  forbidding  payment  of  tribute  to  Caesar 
and  (b)  claiming  to  be  the  Messianic  King.2  (4)  The  sub- 
sequent irregular  proceedings  in  which  the  procurator, 
under  pressure  from  a  furious  mob  which  had  been  in- 
cited by  the  priests,  yielded  to  the  general  clamour  for  a 
sentence  of  death. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  records  of  the  former  trial 
have  been  pronounced  unsatisfactory,  as  showing  errors 
in  the  matter  of  procedure,  etc.,  we  may  notice  here  the 
chief  infringements  of  strict  Jewish  law  which  it  presents. 

As  the  arrest  of  Jesus  was  effected  during  the  night, 
the  legal  course  would  have  been  to  detain  the  prisoner 
in  custody,  after  the  preliminary  examination  by  Annas, 
until  the  next  day  (cf.  Acts  4  :  3).3  This  was  not  done; 
consequently  the  whole  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
Sanhedrin  were  technically  irregular  and  therefore  legally 
null  and  void.    Also,  according  to  Luke  23  :  51,  Joseph 

1  Edersheim  says  (Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  II,  p.  556)  that  in  great  crim- 
inal cases  or  important  investigations  the  high  priest  always  presided.  In 
legal  and  ritual  questions  the  Nasi  presided,  who,  at  this  time,  was  Gamaliel 
(Acts  5  :  34).  On  the  confusion  in  the  narrative  in  the  synoptics  and  John  18 
and  its  explanation,  see  Blass,  Philology  of  tlie  Gospels,  pp.  56-59. 

2  This  trial  (John  18  :  33-38)  really  ended  in  an  acquittal  and  was  quite 
in  accordance  with  Roman  law  as  then  administered  in  the  provinces. 

3 1,  e.,  between  6  a.  m.  and  6  p.  m.  (Sanh.  iv).  The  next  day,  however, 
was  equally  precluded,  being  the  eve  of  a  Sabbath  and  perhaps  the  paschal 
festival. 


230    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

of  Arimathasa  (and  possibly  Gamaliel  and  some  others) 
had  been  opposed  to  the  proceedings  and  probably  the 
verdict.  This  was  another  irregularity,  as  the  whole  of 
the  seventy-one  members  ought  to  have  concurred  in  a 
verdict  and  sentence  of  death  against  a  false  prophet. 
But  as  the  trial  ended,  after  Pilate's  examination,  in  a 
sudden  outburst  of  mob-violence,  these  points  were  all 
ignored1  and  cannot  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  evan- 
gelists.2 And  now  let  us  consider  the  various  objections 
which  have  been  raised  by  the  advocates  of  the  mythical 
hypothesis. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  assures  us 
{Pagan  Christs,  p.  197)  that  these  narratives  in  the  Gos- 
pels are  clearly  unhistorical  because,  it  would  seem,  so 
many  events  are  said  to  have  happened  all  in  the  space 
of  one  night.  This  objection  is  developed  still  further 
by  Doctor  Anderson  in  an  article,  "The  Essence  of  the 
Faith,"  in  The  Quest  for  April,  1912,  where  he  says: 
"The  critic  .  .  .  will  proceed  to  prove  that  the  stories  of 
the  trial,  arrest,  and  crucifixion  are  quite  understandable 
as  scenes  of  a  mystery-play  but  are  quite  inexplicable 
as  facts  of  history.  The  trial  is  represented  as  lasting 
through  one  night,  when,  as  Renan  points  out,  an  East- 
ern city  is  wrapt  in  silence  and  darkness,  quite  natural 
as  scenes  in  a  mystery-play  but  not  as  actual  history." 

Let  us  deal  first  of  all  with  this  latter  and  more  seri- 

1 A  similar  instance  of  a  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin,  irregularly  conducted 
by  the  high  priest  Annas  (circ.  63  A.  D.),  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Ant., 
XX,  9,  1). 

2  Quite  recently  Professor  Goethals  {Melanges  d'Histaire  du  Christian- 
isme,  "III  Jesus  a  Jerusalem,"  191 2)  thinks  that  Mark's  version  of  the 
trial  is  largely  hagiographical.  It  was,  he  says,  "  worked  over  at  Rome  after 
64  A.  D.,  and  aims  at  showing  Jesus  as  the  prototype  of  confessors  and  mar- 
tyrs." He  follows  in  preference  the  account  given  in  the  Additamenta,  ac- 
cording to  which  there  was  an  actual  plot  formed  by  one  hundred  and  fifty 
of  the  followers  of  Jesus  to  make  him  a  Messianic  King.  This  conspiracy 
was  revealed  to  the  Sanhedrin,  and  he  was  taken  before  Pilate,  tried,  and 
discharged.  Then  came  the  arrest  by  the  Jews  and  his  condemnation  by 
the  Sanhedrin  as  a  false  prophet. 


THE  TRIALS  231 

ous  objection.  Had  either  Renan  or  Doctor  Anderson 
really  thought  twice,  the  former  would  never  have  penned 
these  words  and  the  latter  would  not  have  quoted  them. 
"Darkness ,"  with  the  paschal  moon  almost  full  and  in 
the  clear,  bright  atmosphere  of  an  Eastern  sky !  Again, 
"silence"  with  the  crowds  of  foreign  Jews  arriving 
hourly,  day  and  night,  and  the  whole  city  seething  with 
the  bustle  and  excitement  of  the  approaching  Passover 
which  began  the  next  day!  This  excitement  may  also 
have  been  increased  by  rumours  of  an  intended  out- 
break and  proclamation  of  a  Messianic  King;  in  which 
case  both  Romans  and  Jews  would  be  in  a  state  of  ex- 
pectancy and  readiness  during  the  night  and  day  preced- 
ing the  celebration  of  the  great  feast,  the  one  in  order  to 
be  ready  to  crush  the  movement  in  the  bud,  the  other 
in  order  to  be  ready  to  give  whatever  support  might  be 
deemed  necessary  and  prudent.  Ordinarily,  no  doubt, 
an  Oriental  city  is  buried  in  silence  and  sleep  during  the 
night,  but  not  on  critical  occasions  like  this. 

As  regards  the  number  of  events  happening  during 
the  space  of  one  night  and  the  alleged  impossibility  of 
crowding  them  into  so  small  a  space  of  time,  we  may  add 
that  if  Jesus  were  arrested  about  i  A.  M.,  as  seems  prob- 
able, and  brought  before  Annas  about  2  A.  m.,  the  ex- 
aminations before  the  Sanhedrin  and  Pilate,  and  even  the 
interview  with  Herod,  could  all  very  well  have  been  car- 
ried out,  as  described,  during  the  next  five  hours,  since 
all  these  judges  would  be  lodged  within  a  short  distance 
of  one  another  in  the  temple  area  and  in  the  adjoining 
tower  of  Antonia.  And  this  would  allow  sufficient  time 
for  Jesus  to  be  crucified  at  9  o'clock,  as  one  evangelist 
states.1 

Turning  to  Professor  Drews,  we  find  that  he  indorses 

1  Mark  15  :  25.  See  an  article  {Expository  Times,  January,  1909,  p.  183) 
by  Mrs.  M.  D.  Gibson,  who  produces  evidence  to  show  that  Mark  is  right 
and  that  the  sixth  hour  of  John  19  :  14  is  due  to  the  error  of  a  scribe. 


232    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  view  of  Mr.  Robertson,  but  also  finds  fault  with  the 
narrative  of  the  trial.  He  says  (The  Christ  Myth,  pp. 
241  and  242):  "But  where  the  authors  of  the  Gospel 
have  really  found  something  new,  e.  g.,  in  the  account  of 
Jesus'  trial,  of  the  Roman  and  Jewish  procedure,  they 
have  worked  it  out  in  such  an  ignorant  (sic)  way,  and, 
to  one  who  knows  something  about  it,  betray  so  signifi- 
cantly the  fictitious  nature  of  their  account,  that  here 
really  there  is  nothing  to  wonder  at  except,  perhaps, 
the  naivete  of  those  who  still  consider  that  account  his- 
torical and  pique  themselves  a  little  on  their  historical 
exactness  and  scientific  method."  1 

This,  however,  is  not  so.  An  examination  of  the 
works  above  referred  to  (p.  228,  note  1)  will  show  con- 
clusively that  the  evangelists  understood  very  well  what 
they  were  writing  about  and,  though  mere  laymen  in  legal 
matters,  have  given  a  very  generally  correct  version  of 
the  adherence  to  the  chief  rules  of  Jewish  procedure  and 
the  requirements  of  Roman  law,  as  also  of  the  effects  of 
mob-violence,  which  ultimately  defeated  Pilate's  efforts  to 
get  a  very  just  Roman  verdict  carried  into  effect.  We 
would  strongly  recommend  Doctor  Drews  to  reread  care- 
fully the  records  of  the  trial  in  the  light  of  both  Jewish 
and  Roman  law. 

Again,  a  reference  to  the  evidence  of  the  Talmud 
with  regard  to  the  trial  must  be  preceded  by  a  care- 
ful consideration  of  several  points  of  great  importance. 
None  of  the  Talmud,  as  we  now  possess  it,  was,  in  all 
probability,  in  writing  before  200  A.  D.;  all  contempo- 
rary documents,  too,  must  have  been  destroyed  in  the 
sack  and  burning  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70.  During  this 
intervening  period  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  or 
thereabouts  the  story  of  Jesus  and  his  trial  and  execu- 
tion must  have  been  to  the  Jews  an  oral  tradition,  liable, 
as  such  traditions  are,  to  variations  in  its  details  as  well 

1  Reference  here  to  Brandt,  Die  Evangelische  Geschichte,  especially  53  f. 


THE  TRIALS  233 

as  misrepresentation  from  religious  prejudices.  Add  to 
these  the  fact  that,  when  it  had  been  committed  by  them 
to  writing,  the  church  was  rapidly  becoming  a  dominant 
power  in  the  Roman  world.  By  the  fourth  century,  in- 
deed, or  soon  afterwards,  it  had  become  unsafe  even  to 
refer  openly  to  the  Man  whom  the  Jews  have  ever  spoken 
of  as  the  false  Messiah.  Accordingly,  in  such  Jewish 
references  as  we  find,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  perhaps 
intentional  vagueness  of  statement  and  confusion  in  de- 
tails. Jesus  is  not  often  referred  to  directly  by  name,  but 
generally  as  Ben  Stada  (though  sometimes  as  Ben  Pandera) 
and,  it  would  almost  seem,  purposely  confused  with  some 
other  (actual  or  supposititious)  Jesus  who  appears  to  have 
incurred  the  displeasure  of  the  Sanhedrin  about  one  hun- 
dred years  previously  and  been  stoned  to  death.  At  all 
events,  we  read  that  Jesus  "was  tried  by  the  Beth-Din, 
condemned,  and  executed  at  Lud  (Lydda)1  on  the  eve  of 
the  Passover,  which  was  also  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath.  He 
was  stoned  and  hanged  ( =  crucified)  ...  by  Pinhas  the 
robber,2  and  was  at  the  time  thirty- three  years  of  age." 3 
This  reference,  in  spite  of  the  minor  errors  of  fact  which 
it  contains,  is  amply  sufficient  for  purposes  of  identifica- 
tion. 

It  has  been  suggested,  however,  that  in  any  case  the 
Jewish  writers  must  have  derived  their  information 
from  the  Gospels,  which,  after  200  A.  D.,  were  very 
widely  circulated.  This  view  very  largely  ignores  the 
strength  and  tenacity  of  oral  tradition  in  Eastern  coun- 
tries; and  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that 
the  Jews  would  set  aside  any  religious  tradition  of  their 
own  or  adopt  any  story  from  the  Gospels  which  had  no 
basis  in  their  own  oral  records.    In  short,  the  evidence  of 

1  A  small  town  near  Joppa. 

2  Pontius  Pilate  (?),  who  was  afterwards  accused  of  extortion  and  rob- 
bery during  his  term  of  office. 

3  See  particularly  Pales.  Tal?n.,  Sanh.  Tract.,  Ill,  23d,  and  Bab.  Talm., 
Sarin.  Tract.,  67a. 


234  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  Talmud,  in  spite  of  the  obscurity  and  errors  which 
it  contains,  confirms  indirectly  the  story  of  the  evange- 
lists, a  fact  which  the  Jews  of  all  ages,  without  a  dissen- 
tient voice,  have  always  admitted. 

Peter 

According  to  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  {Christianity  and 
Mythology,  p.  379):  "It  is  one  of  the  many  valuable 
solutions  advanced  by  Dupuis  that  Peter's  legend  is 
substantially  constructed  on  the  Roman  myth  of  Janus. 
Janus,  like  Peter,  bears  the  keys  and  the  rod;  and,  as 
the  opener  of  the  year  (hence  the  name  of  January), 
he  stands  at  the  head  of  the  twelve  months  as  Peter 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  twelve  apostles.  .  .  .  Origi- 
nally Dianus,  the  sun-god  (Macr.,  Sat.,  I,  9),  as  Diana 
was  moon-goddess,  he  came  to  hold  a  subordinate  though 
always  popular  place  in  the  god-group  and  was  for  the 
later  Roman  world  especially  the  key-keeper,  the  opener 
(patulcius)  and  closer  (clusius).1  There  could  not  be  a 
more  exact  parallel  to  the  Petrine  claims.  .  .  . 

"As  the  mythical  Peter  is  a  fisherman,  so  to  Janus,  on 
coins,  belongs  the  symbol  of  a  bark,  and  he  is  the  god 
of  havens.  Further,  he  is  the  source  or  deity  of  wells, 
rivers,  and  streams.  It  is  not  unlikely,  by  the  way,  that 
a  representation  of  Janus  beside  Poseidon,  in  his  capac- 
ity of  sea-regent,  may  have  motived  the  introduction  of 
Peter  into  the  myth  of  Jesus  walking  on  the  waves, 
though,  as  before  suggested  [p.  358],  the  rock  may  have 
given  the  idea." 

Further,  in  his  Pagan  Christs  (p.  353),  Mr.  Robert- 
son continues  and  expands  this  theory.  There  he  lays 
great  stress  upon  the  two  faces  of  the  god,  and  further 
seeks  to  establish  an  identity  between  Janus  and  Jesus, 
who  "has  constructively  several  of  the  attributes  of 
Proteus- Janus,"  instancing  "I  am  the  door,"  "I  stand 

1  See  Ovid,  Fasti,  I,  129  and  130. 


PETER  235 

at  the  door  and  knock,"  "I  am  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  me"  (" Janus  with  the  two  faces,  old  and 
young,  seated  in  the  midst  of  the  twelve  altars"),  "I 
have  the  keys  of  death  and  Hades."  "The  function  of 
Janus  as  god  of  war  is  also  associable  with  the  dictum: 
'I  came  not  to  bring  peace  but  a  sword'.  .  .   !" 

Again,  he  finds  the  further  remarkable  coincidence  that 
in  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead  (chap.  68,  Doctor 
Budge's  translation,  p.  123)  Petra  is  the  name  of  the 
divine  doorkeeper  of  heaven.  This  suggests  an  ancient 
connexion  between  the  Egyptian  and  Asiatic  cults.  Fur- 
thermore, he  thinks  that  certain  early  Christian  sculp- 
tures, which  represent  the  story  of  Jesus  and  Peter  and 
the  cock-crowing,1  "suggest  that  it  [the  story]  originated 
as  an  interpretation  of  some  such  sculpture."  These 
sculptures  he  further  wishes  to  connect  with  a  Mithraic 
source,  because  in  the  Zend-Avesta  (Bundahish  XIX  and 
Vendidad,  Farg.  XVIII,  2)  the  cock  is  mentioned  as  a 
bird  symbolic  of  the  sun-god. 

Lastly,  he  thinks  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  381) 
that  "the  two-faced  image  of  Janus  connects  alike  with 
the  dual  aspect  of  Mithra,  who  is  two-sexed,  and  the 
myth  of  Peter's  repudiation  of  Jesus."  And  this  be- 
cause the  term  bifrons  ("two-faced")  does  not  seem  to 
have  become  for  the  Romans,  as  it  is  for  us,  a  term  sig- 
nifying treachery  or  duplicity,  doubtless  because  Janus, 
to  whom  it  belonged,  was  a  benign  god.  "But,"  he  adds, 
"in  connexion  with  a  new  cult  which  rejected  the  old 
theosophies,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  the  sur- 

1  It  has  been  suggested  that  this  incident,  connected  with  Peter's  denial 
of  Jesus  (Mark  14  :  68-72),  has  reference  to  the  restrictions  supposed  by 
the  Jews  to  be  laid  upon  mazzikin  (ri?MD),  evil  spirits,  or  demons.  These 
beings,  and  the  similar  jinns  of  the  Arabs,  etc.,  carried  on  their  practises 
of  seducing  mankind  into  various  sins  and  errors  during  the  night.  But  the 
moment  the  cock  crew  their  powers  were  suspended.  See  Weber,  Judische 
Theologie  (Leipzig,  1897),  p.  255.  There  may  be  some  connexion;  but  why 
did  the  cock,  according  to  some  authorities,  crow  twice? 


236    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

mise  that  the  personage  with  two  faces,  looking  forward 
and  backward,  had  been  guilty  of  some  act  of  double 
dealing!"  We  will  now  deal  with  these  views  in  some 
detail. 

Mr.  Robertson's  statement  of  the  matter,  as  set  forth 
above,  is  characterised  by  several  errors  of  fact  as  well 
as  some  confusion  of  thought.  When  these  are  elimi- 
nated it  will  be  seen  that  the  Janus-(?  Dianus)  myth  is 
anything  but  an  exact  parallel  to  the  "myth"  of  Peter. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  quite  wrong  to  assert  that 
Janus  (as  the  month  January)  was  "the  opener  of  the 
year"  and  that  "he  stood  at  the  head  of  the  twelve 
months  as  Peter  stands  at  the  head  of  the  twelve  apos- 
tles." The  old  Roman  year  began  in  March,  as  the  names 
of  the  four  last  months  of  our  present  calendar  show. 
Peter,  too,  was  not  the  head  of  the  apostolic  college. 
So  far  as  there  was  a  head,  that  position  was  occupied  by 
James  (Acts  12  :  17;  15  :  13  and  19;  21  :  18;  Gal.  2  :  9). 
Moreover,  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  Janus  is  a  deriv- 
ative of  and  equivalent  to  an  older  Dianus.  The  later 
Romans  thought  so;  but  there  are  several  good  reasons 
for  identifying  him  with  the  old  Etruscan  deity  Ani. 

Again,  the  Roman  as  bore  the  impression  of  a  ship  on 
the  obverse  of  the  head  of  Janus,  because  the  latter 
was  the  god  presiding  over  all  journeyings,  whether  by 
land  or  sea,  and  was  regarded  by  the  Romans  as  the  dis- 
coverer of  the  art  of  ship-building  and  described  as  the 
husband  of  the  sea-goddess  Venilia.  This  does  not  in 
the  least  connect  him  with  Peter,  whose  actual  name  was 
Simon1  Bar-jonas  and  who  was  merely  a  fisherman  on 
an  inland  lake.  Neither  does  the  fact  of  Janus  being  re- 
garded as  the  god  of  wells,  rivers,  and  streams  point  to 
a  connexion  with  Peter,  who  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  them.  The  former  was  connected  with  these 
and  indirectly  through  them  with  Poseidon  (Neptune), 

1  ?  =  snub-nosed.    A  Greek  name  common  in  post-exilic  times. 


PETER  237 

the  god  of  the  sea,  because  the  source  of  all  organic  life 
was  moisture  and  especially  moving  (vivus)  water.  There 
is  here  not  the  remotest  connexion  with  the  story  of  Jesus 
walking  upon  the  waves. 

Further,  the  connexion  of  Janus  with  the  door  arose 
from  the  fact  that  he  was  originally  a  god  of  the  light, 
who  opened  the  gates  of  heaven  on  the  sun's  going  forth 
in  the  morning  and  closed  them  on  his  withdrawal  at 
evening.  And  so,  in  course  of  time,  he  became  the  god 
of  all  going  out  and  coming  in,  to  whom  all  places  of 
egress  and  passage,  all  doors  and  gates,  were  holy.  Had 
Jesus  been  named  "the  guardian  of  the  door/'  a  paral- 
lel might  have  been  drawn.  But  by  such  phrases  as  "I 
am  the  door,"  etc.,  he  really  means  that  he  is  the  sole 
means  of  spiritual  access  to  the  Father,  a  widely  differ- 
ent notion.  And  the  Janus  with  the  "two  faces,  old  and 
young,"  is  a  product  of  Mr.  Robertson's  imagination. 
On  the  Roman  as,  as  he  can  see  on  reference  to  a  speci- 
men of  that  coin,  both  faces  of  Janus  are  duplicates  as 
regards  age  and  appearance,  and  in  later  times  both  were 
bearded.1 

Janus,  it  is  true,  as  the  god  of  doorways,  is  depicted 
with  the  porter's  keys  and  staff,  and  Peter  is  also  stated 
by  Matthew  (16  :  19)  to  have  had  intrusted  to  him  the 
"keys"  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  it  may  be  added 
here  that  (1)  this  commission  is  not  found  in  the  oldest 
authority  (Mark)  and  may,  therefore,  be  a  later  addi- 
tion, and  (2)  "/  have  the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades" 
(Rev.  1  :  9)  seems  to  imply  that  the  early  church  did  not 
consider  that  these  keys  had  been  put  in  commission 
absolutely  to  Peter,  who  had  on  occasion  been  summa- 
rily rebuked  and  set  right  by  Paul,  and  who,  moreover, 

1  According  to  Servius  (a  contemporary  of  Macrobius),  Romulus  and 
Tatius,  i.  e.,  the  Romans  and  Sabines,  when  they  agreed  to  coalesce  into 
one  people,  made  an  image  of  Janus  Bifrons  as  a  symbol  of  their  union  and 
distinction  (On  Mn.,  I,  291). 


238    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

as  we  have  seen,  is  invariably  mentioned  after  James. 
The  contrary  view  certainly  sprang  up  during  the  sec- 
ond century,  possibly  at  first  suggested  by  the  Janus- 
myth,  and  was  soon  welcomed  in  certain  quarters  for  the 
support  it  offered  to  the  growing  claims  of  the  bishops 
of  Rome. 

Further,  Janus  was  not  in  any  strict  sense  a  "god  of 
war,"  but  was  merely  let  out  to  the  aid  of  the  Romans 
when  on  campaign  and  kept  shut  up  in  his  temple  when 
Rome  was  at  peace.  And  the  meaning  of  the  saying  of 
Jesus,  "I  came  not  to  bring  peace  but  a  sword,"  is  that 
the  Gospel  will,  through  its  rejection  by  many,  also  cause 
grave  dissensions  in  families  and  communities  instead  of  the 
peace  and  harmony  which  it  was  intended  to  bring  about. 

Once  again,  the  Egyptian  god  Petra  is,  according  to  the 
Book  of  the  Dead  (loc.  cit.),  the  doorkeeper  of  heaven; 
but  this  fact  does  not  support  any  philological  theory 
of  identification  with  Peter  (Herpo^).  Petra  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Greek  petra  ("rock"),  but  means  "the 
seer,"  "the  all-seeing  one,"1  and  is,  no  doubt,  express- 
ive of  the  vigilant  sight  and  attentiveness  which  all  door- 
keepers should  exercise.  Petra,  on  the  contrary,  implies 
steadfastness  of  purpose,  the  possession  of  which,  in  Pe- 
ter's case,  is  said  to  have  procured  for  him  the  title  of 
Petros  (ireTpoS)  "stone")  from  Jesus.2 

1  Doctor  Budge,  in  a  letter  to  the  present  writer. 

2  Attempts  have  been  made  by  several  German  scholars  to  identify  the 
twelve  disciples  with  the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac.  This  idea  was  ad- 
vanced over  a  century  ago  by  Dupuis  (Uorigine,  etc.,  Ill,  47),  who  con- 
nected the  twelve  with  the  angels  of  the  zodiac. 

A  few  specimens  of  the  arguments  used  will  suffice  here  to  illustrate  the 
methods  employed. 

Winckler  (Forschungen,  II,  p.  387),  Jeremias  (Babylonisches,  p.  92),  and 
Fiebig  (Babel  u.  das  N.  T.,  p.  18)  derive  Alphmis  (Mark  3  :  18)  from  Bab., 
Alpu=Taurus.  As  this  explanation  is  open  to  the  trifling  objection  that 
it  was  James  himself,  and  not  his  father,  who  represents  the  sign,  Fiebig 
replies  that  the  names  of  fathers  are  not  always  intended  in  the  genealogical 
sense. 

Again,  Thomas  (Heb.,  °,N?,  Bab.,  tnaniu,  Syr.,  thama,  "a  twin")  is  identi- 


PETER  239 

Further,  Mr.  Robertson's  interpretation  of  the  early 
Christian  sculptures  descriptive  of  the  story  of  the  de- 
nials and  the  cock-crowing  is  most  certainly  a  direct 
inversion  of  facts.  Those  incidents  would  be  likely  to 
suggest  the  sculptures;  but  the  sculptures  would  not 
suggest  the  incident  to  any  writer,  even  if  the  cock  were 
recognised  as  being  a  symbol  of  the  sun-god  in  his  ear- 
liest morning  phase. 

Lastly,  as  regards  the  origin  of  the  two-faced  concep- 
tion of  Janus,  the  ordinary  explanation  is  that  it  arose 
out  of  the  fact  that  all  doors  and  gates  looked  both  ways 
(inward  and  outward).  Doctor  Budge,  however,  thinks 
that  the  idea  was  probably  suggested  by  the  two-headed 
god,  the  Horus-Set  of  old  Egypt.  In  any  case,  it  cannot 
have  arisen  out  of  the  dual  aspect  of  Mithra,  "who  is 
two-sexed"  [  ?  ].  Neither  Janus  nor  " Peter- Jesus' '  (whom 
Mr.  Robertson  appears  to  regard  as  a  sort  of  duplex 
representation  [Proteus-Janus]  of  the  sun)  could  be  in 
any  sense  termed  "two-sexed"!  The  mythical  view  of 
the  matter  is  further  weakened  by  Mr.  Robertson's  own 
subsequent  admission  that  the  title  Janus  Bifrons  had 
no  sign  of  duplicity  or  treachery  about  it,  and  conse- 
quently the  two-faced  god  cannot  have  suggested  Peter's 
facing  both  ways  during  the  period  of  suspense  and 
stress  at  the  trial.  Neither,  in  point  of  fact,  have  we 
any  evidence  to  show  that  the  concept  of  Janus,  the  be- 
nign god,  was  ever  changed  by  the  "new  cult"  into  one 
implying  some  act  of  double  dealing. 

fied  with  the  zodiacal  constellation  Gemini  merely  because  the  two  words 
signify  nearly  the  same  thing;  and  so  forth. 

These  several  arguments  are  further  enforced  in  a  collective  sense  by  a 
reference  to  the  saying  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  19  :  28;  cf.  Luke  22  :  30,  from 
which  it  is  inferred  that  there  are  twelve  disciples  because  there  were  twelve 
tribes.  From  this  fact  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  sons  of  Jacob  and 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  must  also  be  personifications  of  the  twelve  signs 
of  the  zodiac  (see  Gen.  49  :  3-28)  as,  indeed,  they  have  been  pronounced 
to  be.  Most  readers  will  agree  that  such  demonstrations  are  exceedingly 
unsatisfactory  (see  Astronomical  Myths,  J.  E.  Blake,  1877,  pp.  106 Jf.). 


240   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Robertson's  entire  hypothesis  of  Pe- 
ter, as  representing  a  kind  of  Christianised  Roman  Janus, 
or  Egyptian  Petra,  and  as  ultimately  a  mere  mythical 
character  derived  from  a  pagan  source,  is  wholly  unten- 
able. 

Pilate 

The  semi-mythologising  of  Pontius  Pilate  by  Professor 
Drews  is  really  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  rad- 
ical unsoundness  of  his  whole  system  of  exegesis.  The 
ease  with  which  well-known  and  undoubtedly  historical 
characters  can  be  made  to  lend  themselves  to  this  kind  of 
treatment,  in  the  hands  of  an  expert  at  such  schemes,  is 
here  most  clearly  exemplified. 

We  know  from  history  that  Pilate  was  the  fifth  of  the 
seven  procurators  who  administered  the  Roman  province 
of  Judaea  during  the  period  26-36  A.  D.  (cf.  Jos.,  Ant., 
XVIII,  4,  2).  His  nomen  is  suggestive  of  a  connexion 
with  the  Samnite  Pontii,  while  his  cognomen  may  be 
derived  either  from  pileatus,  i.  e.,  wearing  the  pileus,  or 
felt  cap,  of  the  manumitted  slave,  or  (more  probably) 
from  pilatus,  the  man  armed  with  the  javelin,  i.  e.,  the 
legionary  soldier.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of 
inferior  birth  and  culture  and  to  have  treated  Jewish 
customs  and  idiosyncrasies  with  more  than  ordinary  Ro- 
man contempt.  His  portrait,  however,  as  sketched  by 
Josephus,  is  doubtless  drawn  from  a  purely  Jewish  and 
unfriendly  standpoint.1  Pilate's  hostility  to  the  Jews 
themselves  may,  perhaps,  partly  account  for  his  evident 
desire  to  be  fair,  and  even  sympathetic,  towards  Jesus 
until  events  proved  too  strong  for  him;  at  any  rate, 
the  fierce  and  uncompromising  hatred  displayed  by  the 
priesthood  towards  the  meek  and  uncomplaining  pris- 
oner evidently  touched  chords  of  both  pity  and  indig- 

1  So  also  that  of  Philo  Judaeus,  who  says  (Leg.  ad  Caium,  38)  that  Agrippa 
I  described  him  as  tV  <pvalv  aKa(j.irris. 


PILATE  241 

nation  in  his  breast,  which  for  a  time  at  least  prevailed 
over  Roman  truculence  and  indifference  to  suffering  and 
wrong. 

But  all  this  evidence,  set  forth  so  naturally  and  sim- 
ply by  the  Gospel  writers,  is  brushed  aside  by  Professor 
Drews,  who  prefers  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of 
Jesus,  pp.  55,  158,  and  159)  to  follow  the  speculations  of 
Niemojewski1  to  that  of  ancient  and  almost  contempo- 
rary writers  and  biographers.  Accordingly,  the  Pilate 
of  the  Gospels  is  identified  with  the  constellation  Orion, 
who  is  said  to  be  the  "javelin  man"  (pilatus),  with  the 
"arrow,  or  lance  constellation"  (sagitta).  This  "arrow," 
or  "lance,"  in  the  Greek  form  of  the  zodiacal  myth,  is,  he 
says,  very  long,  and  the  wielder  of  it  appears  in  "the 
Christian  [apocryphal]  legend"  as  the  soldier  Longinus 
who  pierces  the  side  of  Jesus  with  a  spear  Q^dyxv,  John 
19  :  34).  To  summarise  Drews's  theory  in  his  own  words: 
"In  the  astral-myth,  the  Christ  hanging  on  the  cross,  or 
world- tree  (i.  e.,  the  Milky  Way),  is  killed  by  the  lance  of 
Pilatus."  2 

But  we  must  not  hastily  conclude  from  this  that  Doc- 
tor Drews  disbelieves  in  the  existence  of  the  historic 
Pilate.  He  thinks,  with  Niemojewski,  that  the  Christian 
populace  told  the  legend  of  a  javelin-man,  a  certain  Pi- 
latus, who  was  supposed  (sic)  to  have  been  responsible 
for  the  death  of  the  Saviour.  "This,"  he  recklessly  adds, 
"wholly  sufficed  for  Tacitus  to  recognise  in  him  the  proc- 
urator in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  who  must  have  been  known 
to  the  Roman  historian  from  the  books  of  Josephus  on  the 
1  Jewish  War,'  which  were  destined  for  the  imperial  house."  3 

1  In  his  Gott  Jesus  im  Lichle  fremder  und  eigener  Forsckungen  samt  Dar- 
stellung  der  evangelischen  Astrolstofe  Astralszenen  mid  Astralsysteme  (19 10). 

2  See,  however,  Appendix  C,  where,  in  the  "astral  drama"  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, Orion  represents  not  (as  here)  the  slayer  of  the  Christ  but  the  Christ 
himself !    This  is  flat  self-contradiction. 

3  Italics  ours.  On  p.  158  (op.  cit.),  however,  Professor  Drews  states  his 
theory  less  dogmatically:   "//  is  not  certain  [italics  ours]  that  we  have  not 


242  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

To  offer  such  an  explanation  of  the  "Story  of  the 
Cross/ '  as  told  by  Tacitus,  the  "Gibbon  of  the  ancient 
Roman  world,"  is  to  credit  that  great  and  philosophical 
historian  with  a  carelessness  and  lack  of  judgment,  not 
to  say  of  common  sense,  which  is  wholly  undeserved  by 
him.  Finally,  Drews  adds:  "In  point  of  fact,  the  proc- 
urator Pontius  Pilate  plays  a  part  in  the  Gospels  so  sig- 
nally opposed  to  the  part  of  the  historical  Pilate,  as 
Josephus  describes  him,  that  we  can  very  well  suspect 
a  later  introduction  of  an  historical  personage  into  the 
quasi-historical  narrative." 

But  the  historical  Pilate — as  we  have  already  remarked 
— in  the  reports  of  the  trial,  merely  plays  the  part  of 
a  Roman  official  who  is  personally  hostile  to  and  sus- 
picious of  the  Jewish  authorities,  as  he  is  described  by 
Josephus  to  have  been.  And  even  the  unscrupulousness, 
which  is  stated  both  by  Josephus  and  Philo  to  have  been 
a  fundamental  ingredient  in  his  character,  is  clearly 
shown  by  his  finally  yielding  up  Jesus  to  save  himself, 
contrary  to  a  momentary  better  impulse  which  had  pos- 
sessed him.  In  fine,  his  conduct  throughout  the  trial  is 
entirely  consonant  with  what  we  know  of  human  nature, 
where  sound  principles  are  lacking. 

Lithostroton-Gabbatha 

"Let  us  now  pass  on,"  as  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  says 
(Ecce  Deus,  pp.  297  and  298),  "to  the  place  called  Lith- 
ostroton,  but  in  the  Hebrew  Gabbatha"  (John  19  :  13). 
"However,"  he  adds,  "we  need  not  tarry  there  long.  It 
is  well  known  that  all  attempts  in  all  ages,  even  by  the 

here  an  astral-myth  in  which  the  Homo  Pilatus  (the  javelin-man  Orion) 
played  a  part  converted  into  history  on  the  strength  of  a  similarity  of  name 
with  the  Roman  procurator  Pilate  and  that  the  whole  story  was  not  on  this 
account  placed  in  the  time  of  the  first  two  Roman  emperors."  It  can,  he 
thinks,  be  detached  from  that  period  without  suffering  any  essential  change 
— a  characteristic  of  myths. 


LITHOSTROTON-GABBATHA  243 

most  ingenious  and  erudite  and  sympathetic  scholars,  to 
locate  this  stone-strewn  spot  have  failed  utterly.  Now, 
at  least  it  has  become  clear  that  they  have  all  the  while 
been  seeking  in  the  wrong  region,  in  Jerusalem,  whereas 
the  pavement  glittered  only  in  the  fancy  of  the  evan- 
gelist." 

With  this  view  of  the  matter  Professor  Canney  (Erie. 
Bib.,  art.  " Pavement")  seems  to  have  some  sympathy.1 

Let  us,  however,  examine  this  question  afresh.  And, 
first  of  all,  we  will  turn  to  Josephus,  our  great  and  al- 
most sole  authority  on  the  topography  of  ancient  Jeru- 
salem. He  says  (B.J.,V,  5,  8):  "Now,  as  regards  the 
tower  of  Antonia,  it  was  situated  at  the  corner  of  two 
cloisters  of  the  court  of  the  temple,  of  that  on  the  west 
and  that  on  the  north;  it  was  erected  upon  a  rock  of 
fifty  cubits  in  height  and  was  on  a  great  precipice;  it 
was  the  work  of  King  Herod,  wherein  he  demonstrated 
his  natural  magnanimity.  In  the  first  place,  the  rock 
itself  was  covered  over  with  smooth  pieces  of  stone,  from 
its  foundation,  both  for  ornament  and  that  any  one 
who  would  either  try  to  get  up  or  to  go  down  it  might 
not  be  able  to  maintain  his  footing  upon  it."  In  other 
words,  this  rock,  whereon  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem  was 
built — the  Prsetorium2  of  the  later  procuratorial  days — 
was  covered  over,  both  sides  and  flat  top,  with  a  layer 
of  smooth  slabs  of  stone.    The  top  of  this  rock,  therefore, 

1  Doctor  Cheyne,  in  commenting  on  this,  says  (Hibbert  Journal,  July,  19 13, 
p.  921):  "Gab  in  Gabbatha,  like  the  name  of  the  New  Testament  prophet 
Agab(us),  and  that  of  the  great  Babylonian  banker  Egibi,  comes  ultimately 
from  'Ah'ab'  (*.  e.,  Arabian,  Ashhur)."  Keim,  however  (Jesus  of  Nazara, 
VI,  p.  86,  note  2)  derives  it  from  gib(e)ba,  or  gibba  (Targ.  Rabb.,  Buxt.,  p. 
377),  emphatic  gibbata,  Greek,  Tafifiadd  (a). 

2  There  is  some  confusion  here  in  Mark  15  :  16  and  Matt.  27  :  27.  It 
is  not  clear  whether  by  the  "Prsetorium"  the  hall  of  the  castle  Antonia  is 
meant  or  that  of  the  palace  of  Herod  the  Great,  on  the  western  hill,  which 
was  connected  with  the  eastern,  or  temple  hill,  by  means  of  a  bridge.  On 
the  whole,  the  former  seems  more  probable,  as  it  was  a  fortress,  and  the 
palace  of  Herod  would  most  probably  be  reserved  for  the  use  of  Herod 
Antipas. 


244    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

evidently  answers  to  the  descriptive  name  AiOoarpooTov, 
i.  e.,  a  pavement  "laid  with  stone." 

Again,  the  Aramaic  word  W}25  ("Gabbatha")  means 
a  "height"  or  "a  back  ridge,"  and,  as  the  only  important 
heights  in  Jerusalem  were  the  adjoining  ones,  on  which 
Herod's  palace  and  the  temple  and  the  tower  of  Antonia 
were  built,  it  is  a  fair  inference  to  regard  one  of  these  as 
the  height  Josephus  speaks  of  as  furnished  with  an  arti- 
ficial layer  of  smooth  stones.  That  is,  in  effect,  Litho- 
stroton  is  not  a  translation  of  Gabbatha  (or  Gabbatha  of 
Lithostroton) ;  but  the  older  name  of  the  place  was  "  the 
height"  and  the  newer  Greek  appellation,  doubtless  given 
after  Herod  had  covered  it  with  a  sort  of  veneer  of  stone, 
was  "the  pavement." 

Now,  at  the  time  of  the  Passover,  when,  owing  to  the 
excited  and  tumultuous  state  of  the  city,  disturbances 
were  greatly  to  be  feared,  the  Roman  procurator,  who 
ordinarily  resided  at  Caesarea,  came  to  Jerusalem  attended 
by  a  strong  body  of  troops  and  took  up  his  quarters  in 
the  citadel  of  Antonia.  And,  at  the  trial  of  Jesus,  we  are 
told  that  he  was  led  by  Caiaphas  to  the  Praetorium  (John 
1 8  :  28)  at  an  early  hour  of  the  morning.  The  members 
of  the  Sanhedrin,  however,  entered  not  into  the  judgment- 
hall  [Praetorium],  that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  but 
might  eat  the  Passover.1 

Accordingly,  Jesus  was  taken  in  alone  by  Roman 
guards  and  closely  questioned  by  Pilate  as  to  his  Mes- 
sianic and  regal  claims.  When  he  had  declared  that  his 
kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  Pilate  went  outside  and 
offered  his  famous  solution  of  the  difficulty,  viz.,  that 
Jesus  should  be  released  in  compliance  with  a  custom 
generally  adopted  at  that  time,  just  before  the  Passover 
(vs.  39).    This  offer  was  rejected  by  the  Jews,  and  Pilate 

1  The  imperators  had  a  kind  of  portable  mosaic  floor,  which  they  often 
carried  about  with  them  and  upon  which  their  tribunal  was  set.  But  this 
is  plainly  not  what  the  Gospel  here  refers  to. 


ANNAS  AND  CAIAPHAS  245 

then  went  back  and  further  questioned  Jesus.  Finally, 
according  to  John,  he  brought  him  out  on  to  the  pave- 
ment and  presented  him  to  the  waiting  crowd  of  Jews 
with  the  significant  but  ironical  words:  "ISe  6  avOpwTros, 
"Behold  the  man!" 

Now,  it  would  seem  that  quite  unnecessary  difficulties 
have  been  raised  about  the  names  Lithostroton  and  Gab- 
hatha.  They  are,  indeed,  not  equivalent  to  one  another 
as  regards  meaning,  but  apparently  different  names  for 
the  same  spot.  And,  although  the  four  evangelists  give 
a  somewhat  confused  account  and  differ  a  good  deal  in 
details  in  their  versions  of  the  trial  scenes,  and  the  synop- 
tists  do  not  mention  this  incident  at  all,  there  seems  to 
be  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt  the  historicity  of  the 
narrative.  As  a  consequence  of  this  conclusion,  we  can- 
not see  any  justification  for  such  a  statement  as  that 
"probably  Lithostroton- Gabbatha  existed  as  a  definite 
locality  only  in  the  mind  of  the  author."  At  the  same 
time  we  can  well  understand  that  the  relegation  of  the 
place  to  the  category  of  imagination  is  a  great  help  to 
the  theory  that  the  entire  story  of  Jesus  is  wholly  unhis- 
torical.  The  evidence  for  this  hypothesis  must  neces- 
sarily be  presented  in  a  detailed  and  cumulative  form, 
and  every  little  incident  that  can  be  disposed  of  as  myth- 
ical goes  a  long  way  towards  helping  out  the  case. 

Annas  and  Caiaphas 

Doctor  Drews  tells  us  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity 
of  Jesus,  p.  212  and  note)  that  "Many  names  of  sup- 
posed historical  persons  seem  to  have  been  originally  of 
an  astral  character  and  to  have  been  later  pressed  into 
the  historical  scheme;  such  are  Herod,1  the  high  priests 
Annas  and  Caiaphas,  and  Pilate." 

1  An  interesting  and  able  study  of  Herod  and  his  connexion  with  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  by  the  late  Professor  A.  W.  Verrall,  will  be  found  in  the  Jour,  of 
Theo.  Studies,  April,  1909. 


246    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Annas  is  said  to  be  "identical  in  name  with  the  proph- 
etess Anna  (Sib-Zi-Anna  of  the  Babylonians,  Anna  Pe- 
renna  of  the  Romans)  and,  according  to  Niemojewski, 
corresponds  to  the  star  7  in  Gemini,  but,  according  to 
Fuhrmann,  to  the  constellation  Cassiopeia,  which  'dwells 
in  the  temple '  or  at  the  highest  point  of  the  Milky  Way. 
Caiaphas  is  clearly,  in  that  case,  the  constellation  Cepheus, 
near  Cassiopeia;  and  the  two  names  were  subsequently 
applied  to  the  Jewish  high  priests  on  account  of  the  sim- 
ilarity. The  Talmud  enumerates  the  names  of  the  prin- 
cipal men  who  directed  the  Sanhedrin  from  Antigonas 
(B.  C.  250)  until  the  destruction  of  the  temple;  a  Caia- 
phas is  not  to  be  found  among  the  number.  He  was 
high  priest  for  eighteen  years;  but  this  also  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Talmud,  although  it  gives  the  names  of  all 
who  have  been  high  priests  for  ten  years  or  more." 

It  is  really  difficult  to  understand  the  force  of  the  above- 
quoted  remarks.  Annas  (called  by  Josephus  "Avavos),  or 
Hanan,  "gracious,''  is  the  masculine  form  of  the  name 
Anna  fAwa),  or  Hannah  (cf.  I  Sam.  1  :  2  with  Luke  2  : 
36).  He  was  appointed  high  priest  by  Quirinus  and  held 
the  office  for  seven  years  (A.  D.  7-14).  See  Jos.,  Ant., 
XVIII,  2,  1. 

Caiaphas1  was  appointed  high  priest  by  Valerius  Gra- 
tus  (the  predecessor  of  Pilate)  in  A.  D.  25  and  was 
deposed  by  Vitellius  in  A.  D.  36.  Josephus  says  (Ant., 
XVIII,  2,  2)  that  after  the  deposition  of  Eleazer,  the 
son  of  Annas  by  Gratus,  the  high-priesthood  was  con- 
ferred upon  Simon  the  son  of  Camithus,  and  "when  he 
had  possessed  that  dignity  no  longer  than  a  year  Joseph 
Caiaphas  was  made  his  successor."  2 

^ram.,  nd-o.  Buxt,  Lex.  Chald.,  1076.  Perhaps  from  Arab.,  Ka'if, 
"soothsayer,"  cf.  John  18  :  33-38.  According  to  Josephus  {Ant.  VI,  6,  3), 
the  high  priest  was  generally  regarded  as  having  prophetic  powers;  cf. 
Philo,  De  Creat.  Princ.,  VIII  (ed.  Mangey,  II,  p.  367). 

2  'liixTTjTros  6  nal  Kai'd<pas  dtddoxos  f)v  airy,  cf.  XVIII,  4.  'W<rr)irov  rbv  teal 
Kaid<f>av  tiriKaKovfievov,  "J.,  who  was  surnamed  Caiaphas." 


ANNAS  AND  CAIAPHAS  247 

In  the  face  of  this  plain  historical  testimony  such  guess- 
work mythical  identifications  as  that  of  Annas  with  the 
"Sib-Zi-Anna  of  the  Babylonians "  and  the  "Anna  Pe- 
renna  of  the  Romans,"  who  "corresponds  to  the  star  7 
in  Gemini,"  or  to  "the  constellation  Cassiopeia,  or,  again, 
that  of  Caiaphas  with  "the  constellation  Cepheus,"  are 
worthless.  If  the  name  of  Caiaphas  does  not  occur  in  the 
extant  Talmudic  list  of  the  high  priests,  that  fact  need 
not  prove  anything  but  the  faultiness  of  that  record.1 
Perhaps  he  was  better  known  as  Joseph  simply;  or  is  it 
that  we  have  here  another  instance  of  "Christian  inter- 
polation" in  Josephus,  the  common  and  final  argument 
when  none  other  is  forthcoming? 

1  Caiaphas  seems  to  have  earned  unpopularity  amongst  the  Jews,  per- 
haps as  an  intruder  into  the  high-priesthood. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

JUDAS   ISCARIOT  AND    [jESUS  ?]    BARABBAS 

Judas  Iscariot 

The  name  Judas  Iscariot  presents  a  great  puzzle  to 
the  modern  critical  scholar.  Its  traditional  interpreta- 
tion, "  Judas,  man  of  Kerioth"  (fli'Hp  SPK,  ish  Kerijjoth), 
has  of  late  years  been  much  questioned,  especially  by 
critics  of  avowedly  mythical  views.  The  chief  objections 
raised  to  this  explanation  of  the  name  are:  (i)  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  initial  syllable  "Is-"  really  represents 
the  Heb.,  tit 8  (ish  =  man),  the  '&/  perhaps,  belonging 
rather  to  the  latter  word  (cf.  Syr.,  skariota),  though  this 
conclusion  is  at  least  uncertain.  (2)  Kerioth  (Karioth) 
seems  not  to  be  a  place,  but  to  refer  to  a  district,  or  rather 
a  group  of  towns  (cf.  Joshua  15  :  25,  but  see  Jer.  48  :  24 
and  41,  where  a  Kerioth  in  Moab  is  mentioned).  (3)  Had 
Judas  come  from  any  such  place,  or  even  district,  we 
would  expect  his  designation  to  be  I.  airo  KepcooO. 

Now,  there  is,  as  Doctor  Cheyne  noted  (Enc.  Bib.,  art. 
"Judas  Iscariot,"  1899),  "a  well-supported  reading  in 
John,  airo  fcapvcorov,  which,  according  to  Zahn  and  Nes- 
tle, confirms  the  view  that  it  is  derived  from  the  Heb., 
HVHp  tftf."     Doctor  Cheyne,  however,  thought  it  more 

probable  that  the  name  may  have  been  incorrectly  trans- 
mitted to  us,  and  suggested  (loc.  cit)  that  Judas's  true 
appellation  may  have  been  'Ie/M^omfc,  "man  of  Jericho." 
Subsequently,  in  the  light  of  further  inquiry,  he  seems 
to  have  decided  (Hibbert  Journal,  July,  191 1,  p.  891,  and 
July,  1913,  pp.  919  and  920)  that  "Iscariot  comes  from 

248 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT  249 

Ashharti,  which  is  practically  equivalent  to  Ashhurite 
(northern  Arabia),  a  family  surname."  x 

It  is  perhaps  too  early  as  yet  to  pronounce  definitely 
upon  this  last-mentioned  suggestion.  Professor  Smith, 
however  (Ecce  Deus,  pp.  319  and  320),  admits  that  it  is  a 
"most  ingenious  hypothesis,"  though  he  doubts  whether 
it  will  hold  good;  meanwhile,  he  asks  for  evidence  in 
support  of  it,  and  points  out  that  Cheyne  elsewhere  ad- 
mits that  Jesus  was  not  betrayed,  or  even  handed  over, 
to  the  Jewish  authorities  by  "Judas"  or  any  one  else; 
further,  that  he  says:  "the  twelve  apostles  are  to  me  as 
unhistorical  as  the  seventy  disciples,"  a  somewhat  effec- 
tive retort  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

The  various  etymological  difficulties  which  are  encoun- 
tered in  the  derivation  of  this  word,  however,  cannot  be 
used,  even  indirectly,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  term, 
as  an  argument  against  the  actual  existence  of  Judas  as 
a  man.  Names,  like  numbers,  are  readily  open  to  serious 
misunderstanding  and  corruption  in  ancient  MSS.,  and 
it  is  quite  possible,  if  not  probable,  that  the  name  has 
been  incorrectly  transmitted  to  us. 

At  the  same  time  it  can  be  affirmed  that  there  is  no 
absolute  and  insuperable  objection  to  "man  from  Keri- 
oth  (Karioth),"  a  view  which  is  still  held  by  some  com- 
petent scholars  (e.  g.,  Holtzmann,  Hand-commentar,  I,  p. 
97);  and  Keim  (1867-72)  even  went  so  far  as  to  assert 
{Jesus  of  Nazara,  III,  p.  276)  that  "undoubtedly  Judas 
Iscariot  means  man  of  Kariot,"  and  he  identifies  the  place 
as  "most  probably  the  Kerijot  (Josephus,  Koreae,  Korea) 
on  the  northern  boundary  of  Judaea,  half  a  league  north 
of  Shiloh,  and  now  Kuriut."  He  further  suggests  that 
perhaps  Judas's  father  had  migrated  to  Galilee  from 
Judaea. 

1  It  may  also  be  noted  here  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  Judas  is  twice 
designated  (6  :  71;  12:4)  "son  of  Simon,"  to  whom  (6  :  71)  in  many  old 
MSS.  the  appellation  "Iscariot"  is  transferred. 


250   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

But  we  have  of  recent  years  passed  from  the  verbal 
difficulties  and  doubts  engendered  by  etymology  to  those 
which  find  their  origin  in  history  and  myth.  In  the 
year  1900  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  inaugurated  a  fresh  at- 
tack upon  the  historical  character  of  Judas  Iscariot,  and 
urged  with  great  vigour  that  he  was  but  a  mere  drama- 
tis persona  in  a  primitive  "  mystery  play,"  or  "  ritual 
drama,"  such  as  was  enacted  in  the  Eleusinian  and 
other  mysteries.  "In  the  Gospel  of  Peter"  he  writes 
(Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  385),  "the  Jews  figure 
as  equivalent  factors  with  Herod  and  Pilate  in  the  cruci- 
fixion, and  in  a  ritual  drama  written  for  an  audience  so 
prepared  unnamed  Jews  would  figure  as  the  god's  ene- 
mies and  captors.  At  a  later  period  the  anti- Jewish 
animus  which  led  to  the  presentment  of  the  whole  twelve 
in  the  Gospel  story  as  deserting  their  Lord  at  the  su- 
preme moment  would  easily  develop  into  the  idea  of  the 
actual  treachery  of  one  of  the  twelve,  and  to  him  would 
be  allotted  the  part  of  the  leading  captor,  who  to  start 
with  had  been  simply  Ioudaios,  'a  Jew.'  A  bag  to  hold 
the  reward  would  be  a  natural  stage  accessory.  In  this 
way  would  arise  the  further  myth  that  the  traitor  who 
carried  the  bag  was  treasurer  of  the  group  and  a  miser 
and  a  thief  at  that;  while  out  of  the  Ioudaios  would  grow 
the  name  Judas."  1 

It  will  be  readily  seen  from  the  above  quotation  that 
Mr.  Robertson's  whole  case  practically  rests  upon  the 
hypothetical  existence  in  the  first  century  A.  D.,  and 
perhaps  previously,  of  certain  mystery-dramas  amongst 
the  early  Christians,  whether  Gentile  or  Jewish.  Now, 
we  know  that  during  the  Middle  Ages  the  Gospel  narra- 
tives were  dramatised  chiefly  for  the  better  instruction 
of  the  "masses";  but  for  the  existence  of  any  similar 
presentation  of  the  tenets  of  Christianity  in  the  first  cen- 

1  Elsewhere  he  connects  Jesus  with  a  pre-Christian  Ephraimitic  sun-god 
Joshua  (Jesus). 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT  251 

tury  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  whatever.  Even 
W.  B.  Smith's  "  Jesus-cults,"  !  and  the  supposed  worship 
of  a  pre-Christian  god  named  "Jesus,"  fall  short  of  what 
is  presupposed  in  the  above  imaginative  sketch.  It  is 
true  that  many  peoples  of  Asia  Minor,  as  also  the  Greeks 
and  the  Egyptians,  had  at  that  time,  and  long  previ- 
ously, their  "mysteries,"  in  which  the  cosmic  processes 
of  birth  and  death,  and  rebirth  and  reproduction,  in  na- 
ture, and  life  after  death,  were  mythicised  and  set  forth 
dramatically  at  Eleusis  and  elsewhere.  But  of  any  mys- 
teries even  remotely  resembling  those  among  the  Jews  of 
that  period,  or  among  the  early  Christians,  we  are  abso- 
lutely ignorant.  The  former  people  had  long  been  sat- 
urated with  the  spirit  of  a  post-exilic  Mosaic  legalism 
and  held  all  kinds  of  idolatry,  however  artistically  repre- 
sented, in  the  greatest  abhorrence,  whilst,  as  regards  the 
Christians,  we  have  abundant  evidence  to  show  that,  both 
as  individuals  and  as  a  body,  they  shrank  from  all  par- 
ticipation in  such  pagan  mysteries  and  even  from  any  in- 
tercourse with  their  initiates  and  devotees. 

Neither  can  the  theory  that  Judas  is  merely  a  dram- 
atised and  personified  form  of  Ioudaios  be  sustained. 
Judas  is  the  Hellenistic  form  of  Judah,  which  name  had 
been,  for  many  years  before  the  time  of  Christ,  not  only 
a  tribal  or  national  designation,  but  also  a  common  and 
very  popular  personal,  or  circumcision,  name  amongst 
the  Jews.  In  short,  Mr.  Robertson's  picture  of  the  devel- 
opment of  the  ideal  Jew  into  Judas,  and  the  evolution  of 
the  money-bag,  together  with  the  appellations  of  "miser" 
and  "thief"  and  "villain,"  are  purely  imaginative  con- 
structions of  history,  clever,  no  doubt,  but  not  facts  in 
any  true  sense  of  that  term. 

Again,  practically  the  same  view  of  Judas  is  taken  by 
Professor  Drews  (The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus, 

1  This  question  is  treated  somewhat  fully  in  the  present  writer's  Jesus 
the  Christ :  Historical  or  Mythical  ?  chap.  7. 


252    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

191 2,  English  translation,  p.  83),  who  says:  "Judas  is 
not  an  historical  personality,  but,  as  Mr.  Robertson  be- 
lieves, a  representative  of  the  Jewish  people,  hated  by  the 
Christians,  who  [i.  e.,  the  Jews]  were  believed  to  have 
caused  the  death  of  the  Saviour."  It  will  be  observed, 
however,  from  the  above  statement,  that  during  the  last 
dozen  years  no  conclusive  evidence  in  support  of  this 
thesis  has  been  forthcoming;  we  must,  therefore,  infer 
that  it  still  rests  upon  the  same  purely  hypothetical  basis 
as  when  Robertson  first  advocated  it. 

Professor  W.  B.  Smith,  on  the  other  hand,  had  in  the 
previous  year  put  forth  another  defense  of  the  mythical 
hypothesis  (Hibbert  Journal,  April,  191 1,  pp.  529-544). 
After  discussing  at  some  length  the  variant  forms  (I)  ska- 
riot  (h),  Iskariotes  (Mark  14  :  43),  Kariotes  (K  John  6  : 
71,  etc.),  and  Skariotes  (D.  Matt.  10  :  4,  etc.),  he  dis- 
misses the  traditional  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  name. 
"For  every  reason,"  he  writes,  "we  must  reject  the  ac- 
cepted interpretation  'man  of  Kerioth.'"  Wellhausen 
also,  he  says,  rejects  the  interpretation  and  wisely  in- 
clines to  regard  it  as  a  "name  of  reproach  like  Bandit 
(Sicarius)." 

He  further  refers  to  in  passing,  but  does  not  adopt, 
the  suggestion  of  the  Honorable  Willis  Brown  (The  Open 
Court,  August,  1909)  that  the  name  is  connected  with  the 
Hebrew  root  "Dk>  (S  K  R)  and  means  "hired"  (cf.  Matt. 
28  :  9  with  Zech.  11  :  12);  but  Mark  (probably  an  older 
authority  than  Matthew)  omits  any  mention  of  hire. 

There  is,  however,  he  continues,  another  Hebrew  root 
of  very  nearly  the  same  letters,  *OD  (S  K  R),  which  ap- 
pears once  (Isaiah  14  :  4)  in  exactly  the  sense  which  is 
needed  in  this  story.  At  the  same  time  he  admits  that 
this  latter  stem,  as  a  rule,  means  "shut  up"  in  Hebrew, 
Aramaic,  and  Syriac,  and  may  be  rendered  thus  here 
(Cheyne);  and  that  in  another  passage  (Ezek.  30  :  12), 
the  initial  D   (s)  may  be  an  error  for  D  (m),  as  many 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT  253 

scholars  think.  But  neither  of  these  facts,  in  his  view, 
materially  affect  the  question,  and  the  translation  of 
v3  sikkarti  (VTJ3D1,  Isaiah  19  : 4)  by  the  LXX  version  as 
Kal  TrapaBcbcrcD,  "and  I  will  deliver  up,"  corresponds  ex- 
actly to  the  words  of  Matt.  26  :  15. 

Accordingly,  he  infers  that  since  the  Greek  verb  here 
{irapahihovau)  means  strictly  "to  hand  over,"  or  "sur- 
render," rather  than  "to  betray"  (in  the  bad  sense), 
"Iscariot  means  merely  'the  deliverer  up' — not  'the 
traitor/  l  In  that  case,  Iscariot  is  precisely  what  Well- 
hausen  felt  it  must  be,  a  'Schimpfname/  a  sobriquet,  an 
opprobrious  nickname,  the  most  appropriate  and  even 
unavoidable." 

Finally,  the  conclusion  which  he  draws  is  stated  thus: 
"I  suspect  that  the  oldest  thought  was  one  of  the  sur- 
render of  the  great  idea  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Jesus-cult  by 
the  Jews  to  the  heathen.2  This,  in  fact,  was  the  supreme, 
the  astounding  fact  of  early  Christian  history  and  en- 
gaged intensely  the  minds  of  men."  Further:  "That 
Judas  Iscariot  typifies  the  Jewish  people  in  its  rejection 
of  the  Jesus-cult  seems  so  obvious,  it  seems  to  meet  us 
so  close  to  the  threshold  of  the  inner  sense  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  it  may  move  our  wonder  that  any  one 
should  overlook  it." 

This  critical  theory,  put  forward  by  Professor  Smith, 
is  argued  with  so  much  scholarship  and  persuasive  power 
that  even  the  critically  minded  reader  is  disposed  on 
first  reading  to  adopt  it.  But  on  a  closer  inspection  it 
will  not  do.    Let  us  examine  it  carefully  and  in  detail. 

Now,  the  foundation  of  the  whole  hypothesis  is  the  hard 
and  fast  distinction  which  Professor  Smith  attempts  to 
draw  between  the  compound  Greek  verbs  wpoSiSmfii  and 

1  Mr.  Slade  Butler  also  draws  ("The  Greek  Mysteries  and  the  Gospels," 
The  Nineteenth  Century  and  After,  March,  1905,  pp.  494  and  495)  a  similar 
distinction  between  the  use  of  TapadlSwfii  and  wpodlSwfu.  See  chap.  10, 
pp.  199-200. 

2  Italics  ours. 


254    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

irapa&i&cofu.  The  former,  he  says,  means  "to  betray";  the 
latter  always  means  merely  "to  hand  over"  (in  a  neutral 
sense).  This  is  true  as  a  broad  general  statement  ex- 
pressing a  grammarian's  rule,  but  it  is  not  true  abso- 
lutely and  as  regards  the  practise  of  writers  in  Greek. 
An  examination  of  several  authoritative  Greek  lexicons 
will  reveal  the  fact  that  irapahihwjXL  has  also  a  well- 
established  and  subsidiary  meaning  of  "to  hand  over," 
with  a  collateral  notion  of  treachery;  in  other  words,  "to 
betray."  Liddell  and  Scott,  e.  g.,  give,  as  examples  of 
this  secondary  meaning,  Xen.,  Cyr.,  V,  i,  28;  V,  4,  51, 
etc.  To  these  may  be  added  Xen.,  Hell.,  VII,  3,  8,  and 
Ceb.,  Tab.,  IX,  in  the  latter  of  which  the  two  verbs  occur 
close  to  each  other  in  practically  a  similar  sense.  A  more 
searching  examination  would  undoubtedly  reveal  many 
other  instances  in  classical  writers. 

But  let  us  now  turn  to  the  LXX  version  and  the  Greek 
Testament.  In  the  former  an  example  of  the  sinister  use 
of  irapaSiScofiL  occurs  in  I  Chron.  12  :  17,  where  David 
refers  to  the  possibility  that  certain  men  of  Judah  had 
joined  his  band  with  a  view  to  handing  him  over  (=  be- 
traying him)  to  his  enemies.  Turning  next  to  the  New 
Testament,  we  find  many  instances  of  its  use,  in  the 
greater  number  of  which  the  verb  can  be  translated 
"hand  over";  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  maintain  that 
the  sinister  shade  of  meaning  is  wanting  in  all  of  them. 
Thus,  in  Matt.  24  :  10,  "They  shall  hand  over  (=  be- 
tray, TrapaScoaovcn)  one  another,"  there  is  a  decided  mean- 
ing of  treachery  implicit  in  the  verb.  Compare  with 
this  the  parallels,  where  TTapahaxrei  (Mark  13  :  12)  and 
TrapahoiOrjcrecrde  (Luke  21  :  16)  have  a  similar  sinister 
note.  We  have  so  far  purposely  omitted  the  passages 
referring  specifically  to  the  conduct  of  Judas,1  because 

iThe  chief  are  Matt.  10  :  4;  17  :  22;  20  :  18;  26  :  16,  21,  24,  46,  and  48; 
Mark  3  :  19;  14  :  11,  18,  21,  41,  42,  and  44;  Luke  22  :  4,  6,  21,  22,  and 
48;  John  12:4;  13  :  21;  18  :  2  and  5.  In  each  of  these  cases  the  verb  is 
irapadldu/Ai. 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT  255 

in  these,  if  they  are  taken  out  of  the  context,  it  is  pos- 
sible to  translate  the  word  used  "hand  over.',  But  the 
other  sense  is  equally — and  even  more — suitable,  if  we 
take  the  whole  context  of  the  passage  into  considera- 
tion. The  fact  is  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  word 
7rpo8i8a)fu}  with  its  allied  noun  irpohorr}^  ("a  betrayer"), 
are  but  seldom  used,  the  chief  examples  being  Luke 
6  :  16;  Acts  7  :  52;  and  II  Tim.  3  :  4.  Luke,  however, 
does  once  apply  the  stronger  term  to  Judas  (6  :  16), 
" Judas  Iscariot,  who  became  a  traitor"  {irpohoTT)^) — not 
simply  "a  deliverer  up"  (cf.  0?  koi  7rape8co/cev  avrop  [Mark] 
and  0  zeal  TrapaSovs  avrov  [Matthew]). 

We  may  also  allow  largely  for  the  unwillingness  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  to  use  the  stronger  term  to 
Judas.  His  conduct  is  never  alluded  to  in  a  spirit  of 
harshness,  but  rather  with  a  feeling  of  sorrow  and  sym- 
pathy for  the  unhappy  man  who  had  fallen  so  far  below 
his  former  estate.  The  only  (apparent)  exception  to 
this  occurs  in  John  6  :  70.  Here  the  writer  reports  Jesus 
as  saying:  "Did  I  not  choose  you  twelve,  and  one  of 
you  is  a  hdfioXos?"  This  last  word  is  rendered,  in  both 
A.  V.  and  R.  V.,  "devil."  But  it  is  a  very  doubtful  trans- 
lation, making  every  allowance  for  the  wide-spread  de- 
monism  of  the  age.  Atd/3o\o$  is  literally  "slanderer," 
and  hence  "adversary"  (laTavas,  Lardv),  and  in  that  role 
even  Peter  once  figured  (Mark  8  :  33  and  Matt.  16  :  23). 
It  is  preferable,  therefore,  here  to  render  the  word  "ad- 
versary," in  the  malevolent  sense  of  spy  or  traitor,  as 
Judas  afterwards  proved  himself  to  be. 

In  short,  Professor  Smith  has  not  proved  his  primary 
contention.  He  has  no  real  warrant  for  the  hard  and 
fast  distinction  which  he  draws,  nor  for  the  implication 
that  Judas  is  never  called  ua  traitor"  (irpoSorr]^)  but 
always  merely  "a  deliverer  up."  And,  since  such  is  the 
case,  the  whole  foundation  of  his  argument  for  the  non- 
historicity  of  Judas  falls  to  the  ground.    It  was  possibly 


256     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  fact  of  this  general  distinction  between  irapahihcdya 
and  7rpo8i8cofu  which  also  led  De  Quincey  to  frame  his 
famous  apology  for  Judas.  The  latter,  he  said,  merely 
handed  over  Jesus  to  the  Jewish  authorities,  not  with 
the  idea  of  betraying  him  to  his  death,  but  in  order  to 
force  his  hand — to  compel  him  to  come  forward  as  the 
Messiah.  It  was  time  (he  thought)  to  put  an  end  to  the 
timidity  and  hesitation  which  was  hindering  that  desired 
result. 

This  theory,  however,  has  not  received  any  assent 
from  scholars.  It  is  unnecessary  to  attempt  to  free 
irapahihwfii  from  its  not  unfrequent  sinister  shade  of 
meaning.  And,  in  any  case,  before  we  could  accept  any 
mythical  explanation  of  Judas  Iscariot  it  would  be  nec- 
essary to  show  that  Jesus  himself  was  unhistorical.  This 
has  not  yet  been  accomplished;  indeed,  it  is  still  very 
far  from  having  been  done. 

Finally,  with  regard  to  the  theory  that  Iscariot  is 
a  mere  sobriquet,  or  nickname,  expressive  of  contempt, 
Doctor  Cheyne  asserts  (op.  cit.,  supra)  that  "a  more 
thorough  examination  of  the  names  and  surnames  of 
the  early  disciples  should  convince  any  one  that  they 
were  never  either  opprobrious  or  nicknames." 

We  may,  therefore,  conclude  this  inquiry  by  saying  that 
Professor  Smith  has  neither  established  his  views  regard- 
ing Judas  nor  advanced  any  sound  arguments  which  ren- 
der such  a  view  even  probable.1 

[?  Jesus]  Bar  abbas 

M.  Salomon  Reinach  reminds  us  (Orpheus,  pp.  229  and 
230,  English  translation,   1909)    that   "at  the  so-called 

1  In  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review  (September,  1913,  pp.  197-207)  Doctor 
E.  Krauss,  of  Vienna,  shows,  as  against  Professor  Smith  and  also  Wellhau- 
sen,  that  there  is  no  philological  reason  against  the  explanation  of  Iscariot 
as  "man  (or  citizen)  of  Karioth."  He  also  rejects  the  theory,  which  he  calls 
a  "methodological  error,"  that  Judas  was  meant  to  typify  the  Jewish  people. 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  257 

feast  of  the  Sacaea,  in  Babylonia  and  Persia,  there  was  a 
triumphant  procession  of  a  condemned  criminal  dressed 
as  a  king;  at  the  end  of  the  festival  he  was  stripped  of 
his  fine  raiment,  scourged,  hanged  [?  impaled],  or  cruci- 
fied." Further:  "We  know  from  Philo  that  the  pop- 
ulace of  Alexandria  gave  the  name  Karabas  to  one  of 
these  improvised  kings,  who  was  overwhelmed  with  mock 
honours  and  afterwards  ill  treated. 

"But  Karabas,"  he  continues,  "has  no  meaning  either 
in  Aramaic  or  Greek.  It  must  be  emended  to  read 
Barabbas,  which  means,  in  Aramaic,  'son  of  the  father/ 
In  the  Gospels  we  see  Jesus  called  the  King  of  the  Jews, 
crowned  with  thorns,  and  given  a  reed  for  a  sceptre 
(Matt.  27  :  26-31);  he  was,  therefore,  treated  exactly 
like  a  Barabbas. 

"But  what  are  we  then  to  believe  of  the  incident  of 
the  seditious  Barabbas  and  of  the  choice  given  to  the 
populace  between  Jesus  and  Barabbas?  In  addition  to 
all  this,  we  learn  that  about  the  year  250  [A.  D.]  Origen 
read  in  a  very  ancient  MS.  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  that 
Barabbas  was  called  ' Jesus  Barabbas.'  By  comparing 
these  various  statements  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  Jesus  was  put  to  death,  not  instead  of  Barabbas, 
but  in  the  character  of  a  Barabbas.  The  evangelists  nei- 
ther understood  the  ceremony  they  described  nor  the 
nature  of  the  derisive  honours  bestowed  on  Jesus;  they 
made  a  myth  of  what  was  palpably  a  rite.  If  there  is 
an  historic  fact  embedded  in  the  narrative  it  is  so  over- 
laid with  legend  that  it  is  impossible  to  disengage  it." 

The  question  of  these  mock-kings  and  their  alleged 
connexion  with  the  passion  of  Jesus  will  be  dealt  with 
directly.  We  will,  meanwhile,  proceed  to  an  examina- 
tion of  this  interesting  extract  from  M.  Reinach's  work. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  distinguished  author  of 
Orpheus  should  have  made  no  less  than  four  distinct 
errors  and  misstatements  in  the  space  of  a  single  para- 


258    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

graph;  but  such,  nevertheless,  is  the  case.  Let  us,  how- 
ever, in  the  first  place,  see  what  Philo  himself  says. 

At  the  time  of  King  Agrippa's  entry  into  Alexandria, 
"  there  was,"  he  says  (Works,  "Against  Flaccus,"  VI, 
Yonge's  translation,  vol.  IV,  pp.  68  and  69),  "a  certain 
madman  named  Carabbas1  (Ka^ajSa?),  afflicted,  not  with 
a  wild,  savage,  and  dangerous  madness  (for  that  comes 
on  in  fits,  without  being  expected  either  by  the  patient 
or  by  the  bystanders),  but  with  an  intermittent  and 
more  gentle  kind.  This  man  spent  all  his  days  and  nights 
naked  (yvfivds)  in  the  roads,  minding  neither  cold  nor 
heat,  the  sport  of  idle  children  and  wanton  youths;  and 
they  [the  mob  of  Alexandria],  driving  the  poor  wretch 
as  far  as  the  public  gymnasium,  and  setting  him  up  there 
on  high,  that  he  might  be  seen  by  everybody,  flattened 
out  a  leaf  of  papyrus  and  put  it  on  his  head  instead  of  a 
diadem,  and  clothed  the  rest  of  his  body  with  a  com- 
mon door-mat  instead  of  a  cloak,  and  instead  of  a  scep- 
tre they  put  in  his  hand  a  small  stick  of  the  native  papy- 
rus, which  they  found  lying  by  the  wayside  and  gave  to 
him;  and  when,  like  the  actors  in  theatrical  spectacles, 
he  had  received  all  the  insignia  of  royal  authority,  and 
had  been  dressed  and  adorned  like  a  king,  the  young  men, 
bearing  sticks  on  their  shoulders,  stood  on  each  side  of 
him  instead  of  spear-bearers,  in  imitation  of  the  body- 
guards, and  then  others  came  up,  some  as  if  to  salute 
him,  and  others  making  as  though  they  wished  to  plead 
their  causes  before  him,  and  others  pretending  to  consult 
with  him  about  the  affairs  of  the  state. 

"Then,  from  the  multitude  of  those  who  were  stand- 
ing around,  there  arose  a  wonderful  shout  of  men  calling 
out  '  Maris/  Now,  this  is  the  name  by  which  it  is  said 
they  call  the  kings  among  the  Syrians;  for  they  knew  that 
Agrippa  was  by  birth  a  Syrian  and  also  that  he  was  pos- 
sessed of  a  great  district  of  Syria  of  which  he  was  the 

1  Mr.  Yonge  has  also  altered  the  spelling. 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  259 

sovereign.  When  Flaccus1  heard,  or  rather  when  he  saw, 
this  he  would  have  done  right  if  he  had  apprehended  the 
maniac  and  put  him  in  prison,  that  he  might  not  give 
to  those  who  reviled  him  [Agrippa]  an  opportunity  or 
excuse  for  insulting  their  superiors,  and  if  he  had  chas- 
tised those  who  dressed  him  up,  for  having  dared  both 
openly  and  disguisedly,  both  with  words  and  actions,  to 
insult  a  king,  and  a  friend  of  Caesar,  and  one  who  had 
been  honoured  by  the  Roman  Senate  with  imperial  au- 
thority; but  he  not  only  did  not  punish  them,  he  did 
not  think  fit  even  to  check  them,  but  gave  complete 
license  and  impunity  to  all  those  who  designed  ill,  and 
who  were  disposed  to  show  their  enmity  and  spite  to  the 
king,  pretending  not  to  see  what  he  did  see  and  not  to 
hear  what  he  did  hear." 

Now,  it  is  perfectly  clear  from  a  comparison  of  this 
statement  of  Philo  with  that  of  M.  Reinach  that  (i)  the 
mob  did  not  bestow  the  name  Karabas  upon  this  man. 
His  name  was  Karabas  (whatever  that  may  mean)  be- 
forehand. It  cannot,  therefore,  have  been  the  name  of 
a  character  in  a  drama  or  carnival,  as  the  latter  sup- 
poses. (2)  This  Karabas,  we  find,  was  not  ill  treated  and 
put  to  death  afterwards  by  the  mob,  as  the  mock-kings 
in  the  spring  carnivals  are  said  to  have  been,  but  allowed 
to  go  his  way  unharmed  after  the  jest  was  over.  Again, 
we  find  (3)  in  the  oldest  account  (Mark's)  it  is  stated 
that  when  the  multitude  asked  Pilate  to  release  the 
prisoner  of  their  choice,  in  accordance  with  his  custom, 
he  replied  by  offering  Jesus.  Only  Matthew  represents 
him  as  giving  the  choice  between  Jesus  and  Barabbas. 
The  mob,  however,  at  the  instigation  of  the  priests,  riot- 
ously demanded  Barabbas  instead,  and  Pilate  ultimately 
gave  way  to  avoid  a  tumult.  (4)  Furthermore,  Jesus  is 
nowhere,  in  the  story,  said  to  have  been  put  to  death 
instead  of  Barabbas.    Neither  has  it  been  shown  that  he 

1  Appointed  viceroy  of  Alexandria  by  Tiberius  Caesar. 


260   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

was  executed  in  the  character  of  a  Barabbas.  The  priests 
dexterously  twisted  his  avowed  claim  to  be  the  Mes- 
sianic king  into  a  charge  of  treason  against  Caesar.  In- 
deed, as  Monsignor  Batiffol  has  very  justly  remarked  {The 
Credibility  of  the  Gospel,  1912,  pp.  213  and  214):  " Salo- 
mon Reinach  has  taken  an  incident  for  a  custom,  an 
improvised  jest  for  an  annual  festival,  and  has  never 
suspected,  perhaps  from  not  rereading  his  Philo,  that 
the  students  of  Alexandria,  anti-Semitic  and  seditious, 
were  that  day  mocking  at  the  Jews  as  being  friendly  to 
Caesar." 

Again,  with  reference  to  the  name  Karabas,  M.  Rei- 
nach makes  one  or  two  rather  hasty  statements.  Karabas, 
he  urges,  has  no  meaning  either  in  Aramaic  or  Greek; 
ergo  it  must  be  emended  to  Barabbas.  We  do  not  follow 
this  reasoning.  To  do  so  will,  no  doubt,  be  very  conve- 
nient for  the  mythical  theory,  but  logically  it  is  a  non 
sequitur.1  On  the  other  hand,  Lagrange  has  pointed  out 
{Quelques  Remarques,  pp.  34  and  48)  that  a  Palmyrene  in- 
scription has  the  word  «nnp  {Kerala,  "war,"  "battle") 
as  the  name  of  a  female,  and  remarks  that  it  would  be 
more  fitting  to  a  man.2  Certainly  it  would  be  very  suit- 
able to  Barabbas,  who  was  doubtless  one  of  the  fanatical 
body  known  as  Zealots  (pqXarraC) ,  or  Assassins  {Sicarii), 
that  waged  such  constant  and  relentless  warfare  with 
the  Romans.  The  meaning  of  the  name  Barabbas  M. 
Reinach  also  assumes  to  be  "son  of  a  father."  This 
is  the  ordinary  explanation;  but  it  does  not  seem  to  be 
established  beyond  all  doubt.  It  has  been  regarded  (so 
Monsignor  Batiffol)  as  signifying  "son  of  a  rabbi"  {Bar 
Rabbdn),  and  Jerome  states  {Comni.  in  Matt.,  XXVI,  16) 
that  it  was  translated  "Filius  magistri  eorum"  in  the 

1  To  quote  Monsignor  Batiffol  again,  this  is  "a  twofold  fault  of  criticism, 
an  inexact  reading,  and  an  arbitrary  correction"  (Karabas  =  Barabas  =* 
Barabbas). 

2  E.  g.y  we  might  get  Bar  %.eraba(s),  "son  of  war." 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  261 

Gospel  According  to  the  Hebrews.  Mr.  Nicholson,  however, 
affirms  that  there  is  next  to  no  authority  in  the  New 
Testament  for  doubling  the  r,  though  this  form  is  met 
with  in  the  Harklean  Syriac  (fifth  century)  and  it  is  the 
regular  form  found  in  the  Acta  Pilati.1 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Professor  Drews.  He,  in  the  main, 
follows  Reinach,  and  alters  Karabas  to  Barabbas,  of 
which  he  thinks  it  is  probably  a  corruption.  He  then 
proceeds,  in  some  detail,  to  link  up  the  story  of  the  Pas- 
sion with  the  two  pagan  festivals,  closely  allied  (he 
thinks)  with  one  another,  the  Babylonian  Sacaea2  and 
the  Persian  feast  of  "the  Beardless  One,"  the  former  of 
which  he  specially  identifies  with  the  Roman  Saturnalia. 
The  Babylonian  and  Persian  festivals,  he  believes,  were 
blended  and  adopted  by  the  Jews  during  the  period  of 
their  exile,  and  appeared  subsequently  in  their  history 
as  the  feast  of  Purini,  the  origin  of  which  is  erroneously 
stated  in  the  book  of  Esther.  In  this  last-named  festival 
Drews  holds  that,  while  Haman  represents  the  old  and 
dying  year,  Mordecai  is  the  representative  of  the  new  life 
rising  from  the  dead  (i.  e.,  the  new  year  of  nature).  He 
says  (The  Christ  Myth,  English  translation,  pp.  75  and  76) : 
"While  the  former  was  put  to  death  at  the  Purim  feast, 
the  latter,  a  criminal  chosen  by  lot,  was  given  his  free- 
dom on  this  occasion,  clothed  with  the  insignia  of  the 
dead  man,  and  honoured  as  the  representative  of  Mor- 

1  See,  however,  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Barabbas,"  sec.  2.  The  word  is  also  found 
spelt  Barrabas  (Tert.,  Marc,  IV,  42)  and  abbreviated  as  Barba{s)  in  the 
Talmud. 

s  Identified  by  Frazer  with  the  Zalmuk,  a  Babylonian  New  Year's  fes- 
tival. 

Doctor  Cheyne  also,  but  less  positively,  takes  this  view.  He  says  (Hib- 
bert  Journal,  April,  1911,  pp.  661  and  662)  that  "the  Barabbas  story  may 
be  most  simply  explained  from  a  Babylonian  source";  but  he  admits  that 
"on  occasion  of  what  ceremony  this  took  place  does  not  appear."  He  adds: 
"As  for  the  name  Barabbas,  it  is  surely  a  corruption  of  Karabas  (the  form 
in  the  strange  story  of  Philo),  which  probably  indicates  the  Arabian  origin 
of  this  supposed  fierce  bandit."  But  why  not  Karabas  from  Barabbas  ?  It 
is  no  more  unlikely !    But  see  Cheyne,  Fresh  Voyages,  etc.,  p.  163. 


262   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

decai  rewarded  by  Ahasuerus  [Xerxes]  for  his  services." 
And  further:  "In  their  account  of  the  last  events  of  the 
life  of  the  Messiah,  Jesus,  the  custom  at  the  Jewish 
Purim  feast,  already  referred  to,  passed  through  the 
minds  of  the  evangelists.  They  described  Jesus  as  the 
Haman,  Barabbas  as  the  Mordecai  of  the  year,  and  in 
so  doing,  on  account  of  the  symbol  of  the  lamb  of  sacri- 
fice, they  merged  the  Purim  feast  in  the  feast  of  Easter, 
celebrated  a  little  later.1  They,  however,  transferred  the 
festive  entry  into  Jerusalem  of  the  Beardless  One,  his 
hostile  measures  against  the  shopkeepers  and  money- 
changers, and  his  being  crowned  in  mockery  as  'King  of 
the  Jews/  2  from  Mordecai-Barabbas  to  Haman- Jesus, 
thus  anticipating  symbolically  the  occurrences  which 
should  only  have  been  completed  on  the  resurrection  of 
the  Marduk  of  the  new  vear." 

Let  us  now  see  what  solid  facts  we  can  extract  from 
this  tangle  of  theories  and  suppositions.  Most  critical 
scholars  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the  Purim  festival  is  not 
entirely  of  Jewish  origin;  further  than  this  they  are  by 
no  means  in  accord.  But  while  there  may  be  in  Purim 
survivals  of  former  festivals  of  some  kind,  whether  of  a 
vegetative  or  a  solar  character,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
indicate  that  the  Jews  took  over  the  current  interpretation 
of  these  festivals  into  the  celebration  of  their  new  feast. 
Neither  can  there  be  said  to  exist  any  evidence  to  show 
that  the  various  royal  "privileges"  of  the  old  festivals 
were  ever  attached  to  Purim.    Drews's  further  sugges- 

1  Italics  ours. 

2  Doctors  Zimmern  and  Langdon  think  that  a  hymn  from  the  temple  serv- 
ice of  the  city  of  Isin  commemorates  certain  Semitic  kings  who  played  the 
part  of  Tammuz  and  died  for  the  life  of  their  cities.  Doctors  Radau  and 
Sayce,  however,  think  that  it  refers  to  Istar's  visit  to  Hades  where  she 
wishes  to  rest  with  the  deceased  kings  of  Isin.  Doctor  Sayce  says:  "I  can 
find  no  evidence  either  in  Babylonia  or  in  any  other  part  of  the  Semitic 
world  for  Sir  J.  G.  Frazer's  theory  of  a  king  who  takes  the  place  of  a  god 
and  has  to  pay  the  penalty  of  his  divine  kingship  by  being  put  to  death" 
{Expository  Times,  August,  1914,  p.  521). 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  263 

tion  that  the  ironical  investiture  of  Jesus  with  the  crown 
of  thorns,  and  the  inscription  over  the  cross,  together 
with  the  selection  of  Barabbas,  had  anything  to  do  with 
Purim  must  also,  as  Professor  Jacobs  says  {Encyclopedia 
Britannica,  nth  ed.,  art.  " Purim"),  be  rejected.  "The 
connexion  of  the  Passion  with  the  Passover  rather  than 
Purim,"  he  rightly  adds,  "would  alone  be  sufficient  to 
nullify  the  suggestion." 

Purim  was  celebrated  on  the  14th  and  15th  of  A  dar 
(the  twelfth  month),  whilst  the  Passover  was  held  on 
the  14th  of  Abib  or  Nisan  (the  first  month),  that  is  to 
say,  in  any  case,  several  weeks  later.1  It  is  most  improb- 
able, to  say  the  least,  that  the  Jews,  when  in  Babylonia, 
should  ever  have  learned  to  connect  the  death  of  a  hu- 
man representative  of  the  vegetation  (or  solar)  spirit 
with  Purim,  when  a  connexion  with  the  Passover  would 
be  so  much  more  obvious,  especially  if  the  latter  festival 
had  originally  that  kind  of  signification.  And  it  is  still 
more  incredible  that  the  evangelists  should  commit  such 
a  glaring  historical  error  as  the  merging  of  the  Purim 
feast  in  the  feast  of  Easter,  celebrated  a  little  later. 

Sir  James  Frazer  remarks,  apropos  of  Doctor  Drews's 
derivation  of  the  Crucifixion  story  {The  Golden  Bough, 
part  6,  "The  Scapegoat,"  pp.  414  /.),  that  Jesus  may 
have  really  perished  in  the  character  of  Haman;  but  at 
the  same  time  he  says  that  the  crucifixion  occurred  at 
the  Passover2  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  whereas  the  feast  of 
Purim,  at  which  the  "hanging"  of  Haman  would  take 
place,  fell  exactly  a  month  earlier,  on  the  14th  of  Adar. 
And  he  adds  (note  2)  that  Professor  C.  F.  Lehmann- 
Haupt  writes  to  him  as  follows:  "I  regard  it  as  out  of  the 

1  Some  two  months,  if  a  second  and  intercalary  Adar  were  inserted,  as 
was  sometimes  necessary. 

2  The  paschal  lamb  is  considered  by  some  scholars  to  be  merely  a  later 
substitute  for  a  human  being  (see  Frazer's  theory,  The  Golden  Bough,  part  3, 
"The  Dying  God,"  chap.  6,  pp.  166-179).     Cf.  John  n  :  50  and  51.     s 


264    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

question  that  Christian  tradition  shifted  the  date  of  the 
crucifixion  by  a  month.  You  yourself  regard  it  as  im- 
probable; but  in  my  opinion  it  is  impossible.  .  .  .  With- 
out the  background  of  the  [Passover]  festival  all  that  we 
know  of  the  crucifixion  and  of  what  led  up  to  it  is  totally 
unintelligible." 

Such  a  proceeding  would  certainly  have  made  the 
whole  story  a  confused  anachronism,  which  would  at 
once  have  been  noted  by  the  Jews  as  unhistorical  and 
untrue.  Moreover,  we  repeat  that  in  most  respects  the 
story  of  Jesus  is  utterly  unlike  that  of  the  feast  of  the 
Sacaea.  The  license  accorded  to  the  condemned  criminal 
in  the  latter  has  absolutely  no  parallel  in  the  case  of 
Jesus,1  whilst  the  setting  free  of  Barabbas  was  clearly 
not  part  of  a  predetermined  plan,  as  in  the  case  of  the  re- 
leased man  in  the  Babylonian  carnival,  but  a  mere  after- 
thought and  desperate  expedient  of  Pilate  to  evade  an 
issue  which  he  felt  unequal  to  contest.  We  may,  there- 
fore, take  it  as  certain  that  this  story  of  Jesus  and  Barab- 
bas has  no  connexion  with  either  of  these  feasts,  neither 
does  it  resemble  the  story  of  Karabas  in  origin  or  issue; 
there  are,  in  short,  no  real  parallels  in  it  with  any  of 
these  events. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  per- 
sonal or  circumcision  name  of  Barabbas.  It  must  have 
been  noticed  by  every  careful  reader  that  in  our  modern 
texts,  at  least,  all  the  evangelists  concur  in  withholding  it. 
Now,  this  must  be  due  to  one  or  other  of  three  reasons: 
either  (i)  they  did  not  know  it,  not  an  altogether  im- 
probable supposition,  or  (2)  they  saw  no  necessity  for  its 
insertion,  or  (3)  they  inserted  it  in  the  original  texts  from 
which  it  was  afterwards  removed.  As  the  last-mentioned 
alternative  is  the  one  universally  adopted  by  the  mythi- 
cists,  we  will  give  it  a  careful  and  detailed  consideration. 
Professor  Drews,  indeed,  builds  upon  it  one  of  his  proofs 

1  See  The  Golden  Bough,  1890,  vol.  I,  pp.  226  and  227. 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  265 

for  the  mythical  character  of  Jesus.  Let  us,  therefore, 
hear  his  statement  of  the  case. 

He  says  {The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  75  and  76):  " Accord- 
ing to  an  old  reading  of  Matt.  27  :  17  et  seq.,  which, 
however,  has  disappeared  from  our  texts  since  Origen, 
Barabbas  the  criminal  set  against  the  Saviour  is  called 
Jesus  Barabbas,  that  is,  Jesus  the  son  of  the  Father. 
May  an  indication  of  the  true  state  of  the  facts  not  lie 
herein,  and  may  the  figure  of  Jesus  Barabbas,  the  God 
of  the  year,  corresponding  to  both  halves  of  the  year, 
that  is,  of  the  sun's  course  both  upward  and  downward, 
not  have  separated  into  two  distinct  personalities  on  the 
occasion  of  the  New  Year's  feast?"  We  will,  however, 
turn  to  the  text  of  the  Gospel  before  adventuring  any 
further  on  this  road. 

In  Matt.  27  :  16  and  17  five  cursive  MSS.  (together 
with  the  Syriac,  Armenian,  and  Jerome's  versions)  have 
the  reading  Jesus  Barabbas  instead  of  Barabbas.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  twenty-one  MSS.  contain  the  following 
marginal  note  variously  ascribed  to  Chrysostom  (who, 
however,  does  not  refer  to  the  matter  in  his  commentary) 
and  Anastasius  of  Sinai  (end  of  sixth  century  A.  D.): 
"In  some  very  ancient  MSS.  which  I  came  across  I 
found  Barabbas  himself  also  called  Jesus,  so  that  in  these 
the  question  of  Pilate  ran  thus,  Whether  of  the  twain  will 
ye  that  I  release  unto  you,  Jesus  Barabbas  or  Jesus  who 
is  called  Christ?  For,  as  it  seems,  Barabbas,  which  is 
interpreted  'teacher's  son,'  was  the  robber's  sire  name." 

As  a  set-off  against  these  facts,  none  of  the  existing 
great  (and  more  ancient)  uncial  MSS.  have  this  reading 
in  these  verses.  Neither  have  the  numerous  other  cur- 
sives; even  the  above-mentioned  five  do  not  read  Jesus 
Barabbas  elsewhere.  But  a  passage  in  the  Latin  trans- 
lation of  Origen's  Comm.  in  Matt,  should  also  be  noted. 
It  runs  in  literal  translation  from  the  Latin  (the  Greek 
original  being  now  lost):   "In  many  MSS.  it  is  not  con- 


266    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

tained  that  Barabbas  was  also  called  Jesus,  and,  per- 
haps, rightly,  so  that  the  name  Jesus  should  not  belong 
to  any  sinner."  This  would  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  imply 
that  Jesus  Barabbas  was  at  that  time  the  reading  of 
most  of  the  MSS.  [uncials]  that  Origen  had  met  with.1 
Indeed,  the  late  Mr.  Nicholson  {Gospel  According  to  the 
Hebrews,  p.  141)  pronounced  this  the  heaviest  external 
evidence  in  favour  of  this  reading.  But  its  evidence  is 
by  no  means  conclusive;  for  (1)  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
Latin  is  an  exact  equivalent  of  Origen's  Greek,  the  latter 
part  of  the  quotation  suggesting  the  addition  of  some 
translator  or  copyist;  and  (2)  "many"  is  a  vague  term 
and  probably  does  not  mean  here  a  small  minority.  In 
all  probability,  too,  Origen  had  not  access  to  a  very  large 
and  varied  number  of  MSS.2 

Furthermore,  there  are  several  much  simpler  and  at 
least  very  probable  explanations  of  the  intrusion  of 
"Jesus"  into  the  text  of  vss.  16  and  17  of  Matt.  27. 
The  best  of  these  is  undoubtedly  that  of  Tregelles,  who 
thinks  that  it  is  due  to  an  instance  of  the  error  known  as 
dittography,  to  which  all  scribes  were  very  liable.  In  his 
view,  the  final  iv  of  v fuv  was  accidentally  written  twice, 
thus: 

a7ro\v(TOi)viMvivf3apa/3f3av.    k.t.X. 

Now,  iv  is  the  usual  cursive  abbreviation  for  trjaow 
(" Jesus"),  and  Tregelles  believed  that  the  scribe,  on 
seeing  his  error,  subsequently  deleted  the  superfluous 
syllable  (underlined  above)  in  the  usual  way  with  super- 
posed dots,  thus:  iv.  This  iv  was  then  mistaken  by  a 
subsequent  scribe   (or   scribes)  for  w}  the  usual  cursive 

1  Monsignor  Batiffol  here  very  aptly  remarks  {op.  cit.,  p.  212,  note  1): 
"If  it  be  true  that  the  full  name  of  Barabbas  was  Jesus  Barabbas,  as 
Origen  thought,  the  name  Barabbas  would  be  all  the  more  the  name  of 
an  individual." 

2  It  must  also  be  remarked  that  in  the  Latin  version  of  Origen's  Commen- 
tary on  Matthew  Jesus  stands  before  Barabbas  in  vs.  17  but  not  in  vs.  16. 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  267 

abbreviation  for  «jffow,  and  this  the  more  readily  be- 
cause (3apa/3/3av  in  the  passage  appears  to  be  a  patro- 
nymic. In  this  way,  then,  in  the  course  of  a  number  of 
years,  a  well-established  textual  reading  would  originate 
and  spread  especially  in  a  certain  group  of  codices. 

Alford  explains  the  matter  differently.  He  thought 
that  some  ignorant  scribe,  unwilling  to  concede  the 
epithet  (in  the  text),  €7no"nfiov  ("notable")  to  Barabbas, 
wrote  in  the  margin  ltjctovv,  and  that  when  the  MS.  was 
recopied  this  gloss  found  its  way  into  the  text  in  vs.  16, 
and,  when  once  supposed  to  be  a  name  of  Barabbas,  from 
thence  into  vs.  17  also.  Other  arguments,  both  pro  and 
con,  are:  "Jesus"  was  a  common  and  popular  Jewish  cir- 
cumcision, or  personal,  name;  it  is,  therefore,  not  im- 
probable that  Barabbas  may  have  been  also  so  named. 
Then  "Jesus,"  in  that  case,  was  probably  struck  out 
either  from  motives  of  reverence  or  with  the  idea  that 
it  was  an  accidental  and  superfluous  insertion.  The 
balance  of  the  two  clauses  also  rather  suggests  that 
originally  both  had  personal  names.  Furthermore,  from 
vss.  17  to  22  Pilate  says:  "Jesus  who  is  called  Christ." 
But  a  strong  counter-argument  to  this  will  lie  in  the  fact 
that  in  vs.  20  we  read:  tva  ah^acovrat  tov  fiapaftftav  tov 
he  'Irjaovv  airatXeaoicnv  ("In  order  that  they  should  ask 
for  Barabbas  and  destroy  Jesus"),  where  both  fiapaftfiav 
and  'Irjo-ovv,  by  the  article  tov  prefixed  to  each,  appear 
to  indicate  that  previously  he  was  simply  designated 
"Barabbas." 

Again,  another  and  stronger  contra  argument  would  lie 
in  the  fact  that  no  MSS.  of  the  other  synoptic  Gospels 
(and  above  all  the  older  Mark)  have  any  vestige  of  such 
a  reading  as  "Jesus  Barabbas."  '  It  is,  of  course,  quite 
possible  that  it  had  been  thoroughly  eliminated  in  these, 
and  only  partly  so  in  the  MSS.  of  Matthew,  from  mis- 

1Mark,  however  (15  :  7),  speaks  of  the  "so-called  Barabbas"  (6  \ev6- 


268    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

taken  notions  of  reverence;  but  it  is  at  least  curious,  if 
this  be  so,  that  the  sole  traces  left  of  the  old  reading 
are  to  be  found  in  later  cursives  and  in  Matthew  (in  this 
place  only)  of  all  the  Gospels. 

On  the  whole,  it  would  seem  that  at  present  a  verdict 
of  "not  proven"  is  alone  possible.  As,  however,  the 
reader  may  wish  to  know  the  decisions  of  various  emi- 
nent modern  textual  critics,  we  will  conclude  this  chap- 
ter with  a  brief  summary  of  the  more  important.  Meyer 
and  Fritzsche  defend  the  insertion  of  irjo-ow  here  and 
think  that  the  copyists  erased  it  from  motives  of  rever- 
ence. Tischendorf  inserted  it  in  the  earlier  editions  of 
his  text  but  omitted  it  in  the  later  ones.  Finally,  he  con- 
cluded that  it  arose  out  of  Jerome's  account  of  the  paral- 
lel reading  in  the  Gospel  According  to  the  Hebrews. 

In  more  recent  times  Westcott  and  Hort  and  Scrive- 
ner, and  most  modern  textual  editors,  omit  Jesus  from 
before  Barabbas  in  these  verses,  though  not,  we  think, 
from  motives  of  reverence.  The  chief  other  modern 
scholars  who  favour  its  retention  are  Zahn  with  Burkitt 
and  Nicholson.  At  the  same  time  it  is  rejected  by  such 
an  advanced  critic  as  P.  Schmiedel,  who  says  (Enc.  Bib., 
art.  " Barabbas"):  "In  any  case,  it  is  remarkable  that 
in  all  the  MSS.  in  question  Barabbas  should  have  the 
name  Jesus  exclusively  in  Matthew,  and  there  only  in 
two  verses,  while  vss.  20  and  26  have  simply  rbv  flapafi- 
fiav,  with  tov  Be  'Irjcrovv,  as  an  antithesis."  And  he  con- 
cludes: "Thus  we  may  be  tolerably  certain  that  the 
name  '  Jesus/  as  given  to  Barabbas,  has  arisen  merely 
from  a  mistake." 

But  even  if  we  admit  the  reading  Jesus  Barabbas,  the 
highly  hypothetical  though  picturesque  theory  of  Pro- 
fessor Drews  by  no  means  follows.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
in  the  mind  of  any  one  who  has  not  prejudged  the  case  in 
the  interests  of  the  mythical  hypothesis  that  the  histori- 
cal explanation  best  fits  the  narrative,  taken  as  a  whole. 


[?  JESUS]  BARABBAS  269 

In  any  case,  the  Jesus  Barabbas  of  a  merely  supposed 
Jewish  custom  cannot  be  used  as  evidence  to  prop  up  the 
theory  of  a  mythical  Jesus,  which  still  awaits  proof  of 
unequivocal  character. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  MOCKERY  OF  JESUS.      SIMON  OF  CYRENE.      GOLGOTHA 

AND    THE    PHALLIC    CONES.       THE    CROSS    AND    ITS 

ASTRAL   SIGNIFICANCE.       THE   CRUCIFIXION. 

THE   BURIAL  IN   THE   NEW   TOMB 

The  Mockery  of  Jesus 

We  have  already  seen  in  the  last  chapter  that  Pro- 
fessor Drews  endeavours  to  connect  the  account  of  the 
mockery  of  Jesus  after  his  condemnation  to  death,  as 
narrated  in  the  first  two  synoptic  Gospels,  with  the  rid- 
icule heaped  upon  the  doomed  criminal  in  the  Babylo- 
nian feast  of  the  Sacaea  and  the  Persian  feast  of  the 
Beardless  One  {The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  75  and  76).  In 
these  annual  solar  festivals  a  malefactor,  supposed  to  be 
a  representative  of  the  declining  sun,  was,  after  derision 
and  ill  treatment,  put  to  death,  while  a  fellow  criminal 
was  set  free. 

This  theory,  however,  is,  as  we  saw,  completely  bound 
up  with  and  dependent  upon  another — viz.,  that  two 
Jesuses  figure  here,  an  hypothesis  which,  after  a  careful 
examination,  was  found  to  be  unproven.  As  a  conse- 
quence, therefore,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  detail  its 
corollary  here  (see  chap.  13,  pp.  261-266). 

But  another  connexion  had  previously  been  proposed 
and  worked  out  in  some  detail  by  Mr.  Slade  Butler 
("The  Greek  Mysteries  and  the  Gospels,''  Nineteenth 
Century  and  After,  March,  1905,  pp.  495/.).  He  would 
equate  the  mockery  with  the  aKca/xfiaTa^  "jests,"  and 
ryefopLcr/jLos,  "abuse,"  practised  in  the  Eleusinian  mys- 
teries and  supposed   to  have  been  reminiscent  of  the 

270 


THE  MOCKERY  OF  JESUS  271 

witticisms  by  means  of  which  the  grief  of  the  goddess- 
mother  Demeter  for  her  lost  daughter  Persephone  was 
assuaged.1  "  These  jestings  and  revilings,"  says  Mr. 
Butler,  "were  not  peculiar  to  the  Eleusinian  mysteries 
but  seem  to  have  been  necessary  elements  in  or  adjuncts 
to  all  mystical  celebrations;  thus  the  ra  it;  apagcov,  'the 
words  from  wagons/  in  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus,  and 
the  (JT7]via  in  the  Thesmophoria,  were  jibes  and  sneers  of 
the  lowest  and  grossest  character.  These  extraordinary 
proceedings,  so  incongruous  with  religious  worship,  origi- 
nated in  very  early  times,  and  were  probably  intended 
for  the  purpose  of  attracting  the  notice  of  the  populace 
and  by  this  means  inducing  them  to  take  some  part  in 
the  observances  and  ceremonies  which  were  being  cele- 
brated." 

,  Mr.  Butler  next  refers  to  the  account  of  the  mockery 
given  by  Justin  Martyr  and  in  the  fragment  of  the 
apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter.  The  former  says:  "The 
soldiers  dragging  him  about  (SiaavpovTes)  made  him  sit 
down  upon  the  judgment-seat,  and  said  [to  him]:  ' Judge 
us!'  "  In  the  latter  narrative  we  find:  "But  they  took 
the  Lord,  and  pushed  him  as  they  ran,  and  said:  'Let 
us  drag  away  the  son  of  God,  having  obtained  power 
over  him.'  And  they  clothed  him  with  purple  and  set 
him  on  the  seat  of  judgment,  saying:  'Judge  righteously, 
O  King  of  Israel ! '  And  one  of  them  brought  a  crown 
of  thorns  and  put  it  on  the  head  of  the  Lord.  And 
others  stood  and  spat  in  his  eyes  and  others  smote  his 
cheeks;  others  pricked  him  with  a  reed,  and  some 
scourged  him,  saying:  'With  this  honour  let  us  honour 
the  son  of  God.'  "  "These  variations,"  adds  Mr.  But- 
ler, "seem  to  indicate  some  origin  not  strictly  historical, 
and  to  a  Greek  who  had  seen  the  mystes  upon  the  bridge 

1  Apollodorus  (circ.  140  B.  C.)  relates  that  when  the  goddess  came  to  the 
house  of  Metanira,  in  Attica,  her  servant  Iambe  <riub\pa.<Ta  t^v  debv  iirol-rjee 
/*ei$ia<reu,  "joked  the  goddess  and  made  her  smile." 


272    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

at  Athens,  or  before  the  temple  of  Demeter,  that  origin 
would  plainly  appear  to  be  the  cvca^/tara,  or  'mocking 
jests'  of  the  mysteries." 

Further,  in  reference  to  the  additional  mockery  which 
took  place  whilst  Jesus  was  upon  the  cross,  he  continues: 
"And  must  we  not  attribute  to  the  same  source  the  rail- 
ing and  reviling  in  which  all  classes  of  the  people  are 
made  to  indulge  (Mark  15  :  29-32)?  that  is  to  say,  the 
people,  who  less  than  a  fortnight  ago  had  hailed  him  as  a 
prophet,  now  blasphemed  him;  the  priests  of  God  came 
down  from  the  temple  to  jeer  at  him  in  his  agony;  the 
criminals  heaped  insults  upon  him;  and  the  soldiers,  not 
content  with  the  acanthine  wreath  and  the  crimson  robe, 
began  to  mock  him  again.  Is  this" — he  asks  finally — "a 
true  picture  of  human  nature  in  the  face  of  death  and 
undeserved  suffering,  or  is  it  the  yecfrvpia/jbos  and  the  crrrjvia 
of  the  Greek  mysteries?" 

Before  examining  the  case  presented  by  Mr.  Butler, 
we  may  mention  in  passing  a  somewhat  similar  theory 
which  would  identify  this  mockery  with  the  coarse  wit 
and  general  license  which  was  annually  indulged  in  by 
the  Romans  at  the  Saturnalia,  an  old  feast  of  Saturn 
celebrated  just  before  the  winter  solstice.  All  class  dis- 
tinctions were  laid  aside,  schools  were  closed,  and  no 
punishment  was  inflicted.  The  utmost  freedom  of  speech 
was  allowed  to  all,  gambling  with  dice,  at  other  times 
illegal,  was  permitted,  and  gifts  were  generally  ex- 
changed, the  commonest  being  wax  tapers  and  clay 
dolls.  Varro  thought  that  the  last-named  represented 
original  sacrifices  of  human  beings  to  the  infernal  god. 
There  certainly  existed  a  tradition  that  human  sacrifices 
were  once  offered  to  Saturn,  and  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
gave  the  name  of  Kronos  and  Saturnus  to  a  particularly 
cruel  Phoenician  Ba'al  to  whom  children  were  sacrificed, 
e.  g.,  at  Carthage.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the 
Saturnalia  were  in  their  origin  a  celebration  of  the  new 


> 


THE  MOCKERY  OF  JESUS  273 

birth  of  the  sun  at  the  winter  solstice  and  not  an  equi- 
noctial festival  of  any  kind. 

The  connexion  between  the  mockery  of  Jesus  and  the 
jests  and  " abuse"  of  the  mysteries,  suggested  here  by 
Mr.  Butler,  will  be  found  to  have  no  really  valid  evi- 
dence in  its  favour.  The  latter,  like  the  Saturnalia, 
occurred  at  stated  intervals  and  were  merely,  in  later 
times,  opportunities  for  a  general  exchange  of  gross  wit 
and  badinage  during  a  period  of  universal  license.  If  Mr. 
Butler's  explanation,  that  they  were  intended  to  arouse 
the  interest  of  the  public  in  the  celebration  of  the  mys- 
teries, be  the  true  one,  that  fact  alone  would  tend  to 
differentiate  them  from  the  mockery  of  Jesus.  The  lat- 
ter proceedings  were  initiated  solely  by  the  Roman  sol- 
diers of  the  garrison  and,  it  would  seem — from  the 
absence  of  any  other  recorded  instances — were  not  an  ex- 
ample of  any  periodically  observed  festival.  The  whole 
affair  seems  to  have  been  merely  a  kind  of  rough  mili- 
tary horse-play,  an  exhibition  of  the  coarse  mental  vul- 
garity so  innate  in  the  lower  and  middle-class  Roman 
of  the  period.  We  can,  indeed,  only  regard  such  occa- 
sional outbursts  as  compensatory  relaxations  of  the  iron 
discipline  commonly  exacted  in  the  Roman  armies,  by 
means  of  which  the  man  in  the  ranks  was  reconciled  to 
the  severity  of  the  control  in  which  he  was  normally 
kept  by  his  superior  officers. 

Again,  the  slightly  different  versions  given  by  Justin 
and  in  the  Gospel  of  Peter  are  not  at  all  suggestive  of 
non-historicity.  All  accounts  of  an  event  by  different 
reporters,  however  truthful,  vary  in  details,  and  it  is 
a  legal  maxim  that  these  minor  differences  in  evidence 
tend  rather  to  establish  the  truth  of  a  story  than  other- 
wise. The  motif  here,  too,  is  quite  different  to  those  in 
the  Mysteries  and  the  Saturnalia.  Jesus  is  mocked  and 
jeered  at  by  the  soldiers  as  a  helpless  and  unsuccessful 
claimant  to  royalty,  not  as  a  man  who  is  in  possession 


274  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

of   some    (perhaps   silly)  secret,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
mystae. 

In  reply  to  the  further  suggestion  that  the  subsequent 
jeers  and  scoffs  of  both  Jews  and  Romans  around  the 
cross  are  not  a  true  picture  of  human  nature  in  the  face 
of  death  and  undeserved  suffering,  it  is  sufficient  to  say 
that  Mr.  Butler  is  judging  purely  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  hypersensitive  humanitarianism  of  the  present  day. 
Such  feelings  were  entirely  unknown  to  either  the  aver- 
age Jew  or  Roman  of  that  time,  as  the  brutal  severity 
of  their  criminal  codes  and  daily  practises  abundantly 
show.1  The  fickleness  of  the  mob  is  also  proverbial  and 
their  reputation  for  it  well  deserved.  Little  value,  in 
short,  was  set  upon  either  human  life  or  feelings  in  any 
case;  none  whatever  when  the  person  concerned  was  a 
criminal  condemned  by  the  laws  of  his  country. 

The  Crown  of  Thorns,  the  Reed,  and  the  Purple  Robe 

The  historicity  of  the  incident  of  the  crown  of  thorns 
is  denied  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  {Christianity  and 
Mythology,  p.  397)  mainly  on  two  grounds:  (1)  it  finds 
its  root  motive  in  the  nimbus  of  the  sun-god,  and  (2)  be- 
cause St.  Paul  makes  no  reference  to  it  in  his  letters. 
Mr.  Slade  Butler,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  object 
to  the  story  chiefly  because,  according  to  Mark  (15  :  16; 
cf.  Matt.  27  :  27),  this  crowning  took  place  in  the  paved 
court  of  the  Praetorium,  where  there  would  be  some  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  the  acanthus  and  perhaps  also  the  reed 
for  a  sceptre;  whereas,  in  Luke  23  :  n  it  is  said  to  have 
occurred  in  Herod's  palace;  and,  again,  in  John,  Pilate 
is  said  to  have  been  present  at  the  scene. 

1  We  need  not  go  outside  of  our  own  country  and  comparatively  mod- 
ern times  for  similar  examples.  Sir  William  Wallace,  at  his  trial  in  London, 
wore  a  laurel  crown  in  mockery  of  his  claims,  and  Athol  was  murdered  by 
having  a  red-hot  crown  forced  upon  his  head !  (Magic  and  Religion,  A. 
Lang,  1901,  p.  203.) 


CROWN  OF  THORNS,  REED,  PURPLE  ROBE  275 

Mr.  Robertson's  connexion  of  the  idea  of  the  crown 
of  thorns  with  the  nimbus  of  the  sun-god  1  is  certainly 
far-fetched.  The  former  was,  as  Doctor  Estlin  Carpenter 
observes,  "a  chaplet  of  pain"  and  was  bestowed  in  de- 
rision. The  nimbus,  or  wreath  of  solar  rays,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  regarded  as  the  glorious  diadem  of  the  "Sol 
Invictus,"  whose  representative  was  furnished  with  it  as 
a  mark  of  honour  and  worship. 

Mr.  Butler's  objections,  too,  do  not  present  any  diffi- 
culty. The  acanthus  here  is  probably  the  nabk,  a  prickly 
shrub  with  pale  green,  ivy-shaped  leaves  which  grows 
freely  outside  Jerusalem.  As  regards  St.  Paul's  omission 
to  mention  the  mockery,  that  apostle  appears  system- 
atically to  avoid  such  biographical  details  in  his  scat- 
tered references  to  Jesus.  He  does  not  profess  to  give  us 
a  life  of  Jesus,  and  consequently  such  incidents  have  no 
place  in  his  letters  to  the  various  churches. 

By  the  "reed"  (/ca\a/*o?),  used  as  a  sceptre,  is  prob- 
ably meant  some  cane  (Kaneh  =  Canna)  found  on  the 
margins  of  streams  in  Palestine  and  no  doubt  as  readily 
procurable  as  the  nabk  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusa- 
lem. The  Romans  flogged  criminals  condemned  to  the 
cross  with  a  whip;  but  lesser  offenders  were  beaten  with 
rods  or  canes  (cf.  II  Cor.  n  :  35).  Such  rods  would 
doubtless  be  kept  in  readiness  in  the  Praetorium,  and  one 
of  them  would  admirably  serve  the  purpose  of  a  mock 
sceptre. 

The  robe — "purple"  in  Mark's  version,  but  "scarlet" 
according  to  Matthew — apparently  has  not  yet  been 
mythicised.  Its  historical  explanation,  however,  is  that 
it  was  probably  the  sagum,  or  military  cloak,  of  some 
centurion;    "possibly,"    as   Doctor    Swete    suggests,    "a 

1  Elsewhere  in  the  same  work  he  appears  to  connect  this  crown  with  the 
wisp  pad  worn  by  Herakles  in  his  eleventh  labour  and,  again,  with  the 
crown  of  osiers  and  an  iron  ring  worn  by  Prometheus  (Athenaeus,  Deipnoso- 
pkistae,  XV,  13  and  16)  "as  a  memorial  of  a  sacrifice  undergone  for  the  good 
of  mankind." 


276  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

cast-off  and  faded  rag,  but  with  colour  enough  left  in 
it  to  suggest  the  imperial  purple."  This  robe  was  also 
bestowed  in  ridicule  of  the  kingly  pretensions  of  Jesus.1 

Simon  of  Cyrene 

In  accordance  with  the  usual  custom  in  the  case  of 
condemned  criminals,  Jesus  had  to  bear  the  horizontal 
beam  (patibulum)  of  his  cross  to  the  place  of  execution. 
Falling  by  the  way  from  pain  and  exhaustion,  we  are 
told  (Mark  15  :  21)  that  the  soldiers  "compel  one  Simon 
a  Cyrenian,  who  passed  by,  coming  out  of  the  country, 
the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus,  to  bear  his  cross.', 
Mr.  Robertson  mythicises  this  incident  as  follows  (Chris- 
tianity and  Mythology,  p.  410):  Simon  is  the  nearest 
Greek  name  form  to  Samson,  who  is  a  sun-god,  one  of 
whose  exploits  was  the  carrying  away  of  the  gate-posts 
of  Gaza.  Herakles,  too,  a  Greek  form  of  the  sun-god, 
carried  two  pillars  to  Gades.  Consequently — it  is  in- 
ferred— Simon  the  Cyrenian  must  also  be  a  sun-god,  and 
it  would  seem,  in  that  case,  that  we  have  here  portrayed 
two  solar  heroes  each  representing  the  doomed  orb ! 

The  reasoning  displayed  above  is  remarkable  but  far 
from  convincing.  Moreover,  the  scenic  effect  of  this 
portion  of  the  mystery-drama  is  wholly  marred  by  the 
introduction  of  a  second  solar  hero.  As  regards  the  ety- 
mological side  of  the  argument,  the  name  Simon  (P&^) 
has  the  signification  "snub-nosed"  and  was  a  common 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  name;  the  latter  appellation  Sam- 
son (ji^D^,  Shimshon)  means  "solar."  Perhaps  the  slight 
similarity  in  spelling  between  the  variant  form  Simeon 

1  In  Luke  23:11  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been  arrayed  in  "  gorgeous  ap- 
parel" (iaOrjTa  \afnrp6v)  and  mocked  by  Herod  and  his  soldiers.  It  is  un- 
certain whether  the  author  here  regards  this  as  a  previous  mockery  or  was 
misinformed  on  the  point.  Doctor  Verrall  (Jour,  of  Theol.  Studies,  April, 
1909)  points  out  that  \a/xirp6s  means  "bright"  and  is  frequently  used  of 
snow-white  cloths.  The  Hebrew  royal  colour  was  white  (cf.  Matt.  6  :  28 
and  29).    Hence  white  is  probably  the  colour  here  meant  by  Luke. 


GOLGOTHA  AND  THE  PHALLIC  CONES         277 

and  the  more  strictly  Hebrew  Shimshon  suggested  the 
proposed  identification.  But  there  is  no  real  connexion, 
etymological  or  otherwise,  between  the  words.  And, 
while  the  story  of  Samson  has  been  regarded  as  a  solar 
myth1  (though  he  is  more  probably  a  primitive  and  local 
hero  around  whom  some  solar-mythic  exploits  have 
gathered),  there  is  nothing  whatever  mythical  about 
Simon  of  Cyrene,2  whose  sons,  Alexander  and  Rufus,  ap- 
pear to  have  been  well  known  in  Mar  can  circles  of  the 
early  church  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century.  A 
mythologist  constructing  a  mystery-drama  of  the  pas- 
sion of  a  god  would  never  have  thought  of  introducing 
so  human  and  characteristic  a  touch  as  this. 

Golgotha  and  the  Phallic  Cones 

"The  Gospel,"  says  Professor  Drews  {The  Christ  Myth, 
p.  1 86),  "was  in  origin  nothing  but  a  Judaised  and  spir- 
itualised Adonis-cult."  3  This  view  he  further  works  out 
in  detail  in  a  foot-note  to  the  same  page  as  follows:  "  'I 
am  A  and  fl,  the  beginning  and  the  end/  the  revelation 
of  John  makes  the  Messiah  say  (i  :  8).  Is  there  not  at 
the  same  time  in  this  a  concealed  reference  to  Adonis? 
The  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  last  letters  of 
the  Greek  alphabet,  form  together  the  name  of  Adonis, 
AO  (Aoos),  as  the  old  Dorians  called  the  god,  whence 
Cilicia  is  also  called  Aoa.    A  son  of  Adonis  and  Aphro- 

1  Wellhausen,  e.  g.  (Composition  des  Hexateuchs),  rejects  this  view  but 
regards  him  as  unhistorical. 

2  The  Basilidian  Gnostics  believed  that  he  died  on  the  cross  in  the  place 
of  Jesus. 

3  In  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  however  (pp.  215  and  216), 
he  asserts  that  it  originated  in  Gnosticism.  "The  Gnostic  sects  from  which 
Christianity  originated,"  he  says,  "knew  at  first  only  an  astral  Jesus,  whose 
mythic  history  was  composed  of  passages  from  the  prophets,  Isaiah,  the 
Twenty-second  Psalm,  and  Wisdom."  These  questions  have  been  dealt 
with  in  detail  in  their  proper  place.  Here  we  need  only  remark  that  Jesus 
is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  pre-Christian  Gnosticism  but  was  merely  a  post- 
Christian  graft  upon  the  older  scheme  of  Gnosis. 


278    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

dite  (Maia)  is  said  (SchoL  on  Theoc,  XV,  ioo)  to  have 
been  called  Golgos.  His  name  is  connected  with  the  phal- 
lic cones  (Greek,  golgoi),  as  they  were  erected  on  heights 
in  honour  of  the  mother-divinities  of  western  Asia,  who 
were  themselves,  probably  on  this  account,  called  golgoi 
and  golgon  anassai  (queens  of  the  golgoi),  and  is  the  same 
as   the   Hebraic   plural   Golgotha1    (Sepp,  Heidenthum,  I, 

157  /•)• 

"  Finally,  was  the  place  of  skulls  an  old  Jebusite  place 

of  worship  of  Adonis  under  the  name  of  Golgos,  and  was 
the  cone  of  rock,  on  which  a  statue  of  Venus  was  erected 
in  the  time  of  Hadrian,2  selected  for  the  place  of  execu- 
tion of  the  Christian  Saviour  because  it  was  connected 
with  the  real  sacrifice  of  a  man  in  the  role  of  Adonis 
(Tammuz)  ?  "  Let  us,  first  of  all,  put  this  theory  into 
other  and  simpler  words. 

He  appears  to  think  that  on  the  summit  of  some 
hill  (thereafter  named  Golgotha),  just  outside  Jerusalem, 
there  was  held  in  ancient  times  a  kind  of  cult-worship  of 
the  vegetation  spirit  Adonis,  and  that  on  this  very  spot 
a  phallic  cone,  symbolical  of  the  procreative  powers  of 
the  god  (numen),  had  been  set  up,  and  that  subsequently 
a  ritual  drama  consisting  of  the  mock  sacrifice  and  death 
of  his  image — originally,  perhaps,  a  real  man  was  slain — 
was  enacted,  and  that  this  image,  possibly  by  some  jug- 
gling process,  was,  after  lamentation  by  women  and  bur- 
ial, produced  "alive"  to  the  people.  Our  gospels,  in 
short,  contain  a  literary  resume  and  presentment  of  this 
symbolic  nature  drama  expressed  in  pseudo-historic  terms. 

1  Italics  ours. 

2  Renan  says  of  this  {Life  of  Jesus,  p.  286):  "The  erection  of  the  temple 
of  Venus  on  Golgotha  proves  little.  Eusebius  {Vit.  Const.,  Ill,  26),  Soc- 
rates (H.  F.,  I,  17),  Sozomen  (H.  E.,  II,  1),  Jerome  (Ep.,  XLIX,  Ad  Paul.) 
say,  indeed,  that  there  was  a  sanctuary  of  Venus  on  the  site  which  they 
imagined  to  be  that  of  the  holy  tomb;  but  it  is  not  certain  that  Hadrian 
erected  it,  or  that  he  erected  it  in  a  place  which  was  in  his  time  called  '  Gol- 
gotha,' or  that  he  had  intended  to  erect  it  at  the  place  where  Jesus  suf- 
fered death." 


GOLGOTHA  AND  THE  PHALLIC  CONES         279 

We  will  now  see  what  real  grounds  there  are  for  taking 
this  view  of  the  matter. 

In  the  pre-exilic  days  we  read  of  various  kinds  of  idola- 
tries as  being  prevalent  in  Israel  and  Judah;  but  there 
is  little  mention  of  any  native  cult  of  Tammuz  (Adonis).1 
Had  any  such  worship  existed  in  Judah  the  writing  proph- 
ets and  historians  would  certainly  have  mentioned  it 
along  with  the  various  forms  of  idolatry  which  are  chron- 
icled by  them.  We  read  in  our  extant  records,  in  connex- 
ion with  the  many  Ba'al-cults,  of  certain  asherlm  (wooden 
posts  or  trunks  of  trees)  and  masseboth  (upright  stones)  set 
up  beside  the  altars  of  the  Ba'alim  (and  even  of  Jahveh) 
upon  the  hilltops  of  Canaan.2  Oort  {Worship  of  the  Ba- 
alim), Movers  {De  Phonizier),  and  Collins  {Proc.  Soc.  Bib. 
ArchcEol.,  XI,  p.  291)  think  that  these  were  phallic  em- 
blems sacred  to  Ba'al;  but  the  latest  modern  scholar- 
ship rejects  this  view.3  Perhaps  the  asherah  was  a  con- 
ventionalised aniconic  representation  of  the  vegetation 
spirit,  while  the  stone  pillars  may  have  served  some  pur- 

1  Isaiah  17  :  11  contains  references  to  "Gardens  of  Adonis,"  which  show 
that  the  northern  kingdom  was  tainted  at  times  with  the  Adonis-cult.  Ezek. 
8  :  14  and  18  also  refers  to  a  case  of  men  worshipping  the  sun  (?  Mithra- 
cult),  but  neither  they  nor  any  other  prophet  or  chronicler  mention  "phal- 
lic cones"  nor  indicate  any  systematic  Adonis-cult  in  either  kingdom. 

2  Any  single  sacred  stone,  as  an  object  of  reverence,  or  as  a  sepulchral 
stele,  or  boundary  stone,  was  usually  called  a  massebah.  The  asherah  was 
probably  a  conventional  representation  of  the  "holy  tree"  (Assyr.,  As  her), 
or  "tree  of  life." 

3  See  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Baal,"  and  W.  R.  Smith  (Rel.  of  the  Sent.,  p.  457,  etc.). 
The  latter  says:  "Indeed,  the  whole  phallic  theory  seems  to  be  wrecked 
upon  the  fact  that  the  massebah  represents  male  and  female  deities  indif- 
ferently." The  chief  evidence  in  its  favour  is  found  in  Herod.,  II,  106,  and 
Lucian,  De  Dea  Syr.,  XVI  (but  see  XXVIII).  Movers  also  cites  (I,  680) 
Arnobius,  Adv.  Gent.,  V,  19,  as  supporting  that  view.  A  great  deal  of  non- 
sense, however,  has  been  written  on  phallicism,  e.  g.,  Sex  Worship,  the  Phal- 
lic Origin  of  Religion,  by  Clifford  Howard  (1908),  which  tries  to  base  all  re- 
ligion ultimately  on  phallic  worship;  Ancient  Faiths  Embodied  in  Ancient 
Names,  by  Thomas  Inman  (1872),  which  insists  upon  the  universality  of 
phallicism.  This  is  gross  exaggeration.  Phallicism  is  only  prevalent  among 
peoples  of  a  decadent  type,  whether  civilised  or  savage. 


280     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

pose  in  solar- worship,  e.  g,,  indicating  the  time  of  the 
solstices  and  equinoxes.  This  is  all  very  problematical, 
however,  and  the  real  meaning  and  use  of  both  is  un- 
known. 

Turning  next  to  the  New  Testament,  Professor  Drews's 
exposition  of  the  phrase  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,"  etc., 
is  certainly  open  to  the  gravest  objection.  A  and  X2, 
though  they  are  the  first  and  last  letters  of  the  Greek 
alphabet,  are  not  the  first  and  last  letters  of  Aoos  (?  = 
Ao)  alleged  by  him  to  be  a  Greek  [Doric]  name  for  Adonis. 
Cilicia,  the  land  of  the  dawn,  or  East,  was  sometimes 
called  Ada  (Eoa)  by  the  Greeks;  but  this  fact  appears 
to  have  no  connexion  whatever  with  Adonis  as  a  vege- 
tation spirit,  but  to  be  derived  from  the  goddess  Eos 
(Ads),  who  was  said  to  be  a  daughter  of  the  Titan  Hy- 
perion and  Theia.  It  is  very  improbable  that  the  Dorian 
Greeks  applied  the  same  name,  Ao(s)  =  Eo(s),  to  the  male 
spirit  of  vegetation  (Adonis)  and  to  the  goddess  of  the 
dawn.  Moreover,  Adonis  was  not  really  the  name  of  the 
god.1  The  Greeks  had  heard  the  Syrian  women  bewailing 
his  fate  and  addressing  him  as  Adoni  ("my  Lord").  This 
they  hastily  assumed  to  be  his  name  ("AScow?). 

The  alleged  connexion  between  Golgotha  and  Golgos, 
too,  and  the  precise  signification  of  the  latter  word,  is — 
at  least  as  worked  out  by  Professor  Drews — highly  prob- 
lematical. In  Theocritus,  Idylls,  XV,  ioo,  ToXyoy;  (To\- 
yoC)  is  coupled  with  'ISdXtov  and  is  obviously  a  town  and 
not  a  "phallic  cone,"  the  two  places  being  famous  seats 
of  the  worship  of  the  Cyprian  Aphrodite.  The  scholiast 
on  the  passage  may,  perhaps,  mean  that  the  people  of 

lHe  was  a  variant  of  the  Sumerian  dumu-zi,  "the  faithful  son"  of  the 
great  earth-goddess,  who  also  appears  under  many  variant  names  and  char- 
acters (Tammuz  and  Ishtar,  Langdon,  1914).  He  also  thinks  (p.  8)  that 
"the  original  name  of  the  divine  son  appears  to  have  been  ab-u,  'the  father 
of  plants  and  vegetation.'"  See  Doctor  J.  C.  Ball  on  "Tammur  the  Swine- 
God"  (Proc.  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.,  vol.  XVI,  pp.  198-200)  for  a  discussion  on  the 
origin  and  meaning  of  Tammuz. 


GOLGOTHA  AND  THE  PHALLIC  CONES         281 

the  former  place  claimed  descent  from  an  eponymous 
ancestor  Golgos  (possibly  a  son  of  the  goddess),  and  in 
consequence  may  have  called  themselves  Golgoi;  but 
this,  if  it  be  so,  does  not  support  any  argument  for  a 
connexion  with  Golgotha. 

Golgotha,  on  the  other  hand,  said  by  the  evangelists 
to  mean  "the  place  of  a  skull"  (not  skulls;  it  does  not 
appear  to  be  plural),  has  been  variously  derived  from  the 

Hebrew,  gii(u)lgolet  (>  galal,  "to  roll"),  and  got  goatha 
(Jer.  31  :  39)  (?),  "hill  of  dying";  but  the  actual  origin 
and  meaning  of  the  word  are  still  unknown.1  Even  the 
latter  of  these  derivations,  if  it  be  correct,  does  not  neces- 
sarily support  Doctor  Drews's  theory,  since  it  may  in- 
dicate merely  that  the  spot  had  been  a  place  of  execu- 
tion for  criminals  before  the  time  of  Christ.2 

There  is,  however,  another  possible  clew  to  the  origin 
and  signification  of  Golgotha  which  may  be  worthy  of 
consideration.  All  students  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
familiar  with  the  various  local  centres  of  ancient  Canaan- 
ite  worship  known  as  "gilgals"  \Pp},  Ta  yaXyaXa,  "a  cir- 
cle").3 These  consisted  of  rings  of  sacred  stones  similar 
to  those  called  by  modern  archaeologists  "cromlechs." 
They  were  probably  once  very  numerous  in  Palestine; 
but  during  and  after  the  religious  reformation  of  Josiah 
they  were  mostly  destroyed.  These  stones  were,  no 
doubt,  originally  regarded  as  the  habitats  of  the  local 
nature   spirits   (numina,    (?)   early   Elohim).     It   seems 

1  Cheyne  derives  Giilgoleth  from  Galutk,  a  form  of  Gilead  (see  Hibbert 
Journal,  July,  1913,  p.  921). 

2  A  Jewish  tradition  as  early  as  the  second  century  identifies  it  with  the 
place  of  execution  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  (Mishnah,  Sanh.,  vol.  VI,  1). 
Luke  translates  it  Kpaviov,  "skull." 

3  Ex.  24  :  4  refers  to  an  interesting  example  of  one  of  these  circles  which 
Moses  himself  is  said  to  have  erected  alongside  of  (or  around)  an  altar  which 
he  "builded"  to  Jahveh.  The  chief  gilgal  where  Samuel  and  Saul  sacrificed 
(I  Sam.  10  :  8,  etc.),  where  prophets  dwelt  (II  Kings  4  :  38),  and  where  also 
the  worship  of  (?  aniconic)  idols  was  practised  (Judges  3  :  19;  Hosea  4  :  15; 
Amos  5:5)  was  in  historic  times  a  town  or  village. 


282    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

possible,  therefore,  that  a  connexion  of  some  kind  be- 
tween a  gilgal  and  a  golgotha  may  exist  which  will  throw 
some  light  upon  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  latter 
name.1 

The  Cross  and  Its  Astral  Significance 

Not  only  Professor  Drews  and  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson, 
but  also  almost  all  writers  of  the  mythical  school  labour 
hard — and  for  the  most  part  quite  unnecessarily — to 
prove  that  the  cross  is  a  pre-Christian  symbol. 

Mr.  Robertson,  for  instance,  finds  evidence  of  its  use  in 
both  ancient  Mexico  and  Central  America.  In  support 
of  the  former  he  cites  Mr.  Bancroft  as  stating  in  his 
Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States  of  North  America  (1875), 
vol.  II,  p.  386,  that  "the  sacred  tree"  was  there  made  into 
a  cross  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  408).  A  careful 
examination  of  that  work,  however,  has  failed  to  verify 
either  the  reference  or  the  statement. 

His  other  quotation  is  from  Mr.  Stephens's  Central 
America  (1842),  vol.  II,  p.  346,  where  the  author  states 
that  in  an  ancient  ruin  in  Yucatan  he  found  a  stone  tab- 
let with  an  inscribed  cross  upon  it,  surmounted  by  a  bird, 

1  The  following  points  are  to  be  noted  in  connexion  with  the  two  names. 
We  have  the  three  Hebrew  words:  hihi}  gilgal,  "a  circle";  rhuhi,  giilgoleth, 
"skull,"  "head"  (in  the  Rabb.  n^n  jds  =  "a  poll-tax"),  with  its  cor- 
responding Aram.,  np^jSiji  (see  Targ.  Onk.  on  Ex.  16  :  16). 

In  the  Greek  transliteration  the  second  ?  of  the  original  word  has  gen- 
erally been  dropped  to  facilitate  pronunciation. 

In  the  MSS.  of  the  LXX  version  we  find  a  variety  of  renderings  of  ^shif 
the  chief  of  which  are  7a\7a\a,  7aX7aX,  and  even  (BA.  Deut.  n  :  30)  70X70X 
[Eusebius  writes  70X70X1  and  (F)  70X70.  Here  we  come  very  near  to  70X- 
7o0a  for  yo\yo\6a  (gulgo(l)tha). 

The  stones  in  these  gilgals,  however,  were  certainly  not  phallic  cones,  but 
were  doubtless  originally  regarded  as  abodes  of  the  various  local  numina, 
who  promoted  the  fertility  and  the  prosperity  of  the  neighbourhood,  and 
were  anointed  with  oil,  etc.  (See  Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites, 
"Sacred  Pillars,"  pp.  203  and  456.)  A  conical  stone  (depicted  on  coins  as 
resting  upon  an  altar)  was  the  emblem  of  Elagabal,  originally  a  god  of  fer- 
tility, who  by  the  third  century  had  become  a  solar  deity,  partially  identified 
with  Apollo. 


THE  CROSS  AND  ITS  ASTRAL  SIGNIFICANCE     283 

and  with  two  human  figures  [males?],  one  on  either  side. 
This  Mr.  Robertson  would  like  to  consider  a  represen- 
tation of  a  crucifixion  scene.  But  there  is  no  figure  on 
the  cross,  and  Mr.  Stephens  wisely  contents  himself  with 
remarking  that  the  cross  was  known  and  had  a  symboli- 
cal meaning  among  ancient  nations  long  before  it  was 
established  as  the  emblem  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Again,  Professor  Drews  also  asserts  that  "in  all  private 
associations  and  secret  cults  of  later  antiquity  the  mem- 
bers have  made  use  of  a  secret  sign  of  recognition  or 
union.  .  .  .  Among  these  signs  was  the  cross,  and  it 
was  usually  described  under  the  name  of  *Tau,'  after  the 
letter  of  the  old  Phoenician  alphabet."  Such  an  applica- 
tion of  the  cross  to  mystic  or  religious  ends,  he  thinks, 
reaches  back  "into  grey  antiquity"  (The  Christ  Myth, 
p.  149). 

This  statement — the  latter  portion  of  it,  at  least — is 
true.  Amongst  the  numerous  examples  of  the  fact  we 
find  its  use  in  ancient  Egypt,  especially  in  the  cult  of 
Isis  and  her  son  Horus.  It  was  also  worn  by  both  kings 
and  priests  in  Assyria  and  Persia.  Among  the  Greeks 
it  was  placed  upon  the  images  of  such  gods  as  Apollo, 
Artemis,  and  Demeter,  while  in  Rome  it  was  used  partly 
as  an  ornament  by  the  vestal  virgins. 

Among  the  Norsemen,  again,  it  appears  in  Runic  in- 
scriptions and,  in  the  form  of  the  crux  commissa,  as  Thor's 
hammer.  Imaginative  persons  have  also  detected  its 
use  in  the  mystic  mark  made  in  blood  by  the  ancient 
Israelites  on  the  door-posts  of  their  houses  before  eating 
the  Passover,  and  even  in  the  attitude  of  Moses  when  he 
stood  with  outstretched  arms  upon  the  hilltop  watching 
the  battle  between  Israel  and  Amalek. 

In  like  manner,  M.  Salomon  Reinach  writes  (Orpheus, 
p.  77):  "A  chapel  in  the  palace  of  Cnossus  contained  an 
equilateral  cross  in  marble,  a  token  of  the  religious  char- 
acter of  this  symbol  more  than  fifteen  centuries  before 


284   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Christ.  Another  form  of  cross,  known  as  the  gamma- 
dion,  or  svastika1  (a  Sanskrit  word),  is  frequent  at  Troy 
(on  votive  objects)  and  at  Cyprus.  It  reappears  on  Greek 
pottery  about  the  year  800,  then  on  archaic  coins,  and 
becomes  rare  in  the  classic  period,  to  show  itself  again 
in  the  Christian  era  in  the  catacombs  of  Rome  and  on 
the  funeral  stelae  of  Asia  Minor.  The  svastika  is  also 
frequently  employed  in  the  Buddhist  art  of  India  and 
China."  He  further  thinks  that  this  mystic  sign,  "to 
which  Indian  literature  attributed  a  magic  power,"  may 
perhaps  have  been  formed  by  "the  conventionalisation 
of  the  image  of  a  large  bird  like  the  stork  " — an  origin,  it 
would  seem,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  improbable. 

The  attempt  sometimes  made  to  identify  the  Hebrew 
•Ifi  (Tau)  with  the  Greek  aravpos,  as  meaning  "cross," 
has  been  emphatically  condemned  by  Doctor  Cheyne, 
who  remarks:  "Unfortunately,  the  sense  of  ' cross'  {crrav- 
pos)  for  in  is  justified  neither  by  its  etymology  (see  Ges- 
Buhl) 2  nor  by  usage.  Taw  means  properly  a  tribal  or 
religious  sign,  and  is  used  in  Ezek.  9  :  46  3  for  a  mark 
of  religious  import  on  the  forehead  and  in  Job  31  :  35 
(if  the  text  is  right)  for  a  signature.  No  Jews  would 
have  used  V)  for  aravpos,  though  the  crux  comtnissa,  being 
in  the  shape  of  a  T,  the  cross  is  often  referred  to  by  early 

1  /.  e.,  a  hooked  cross  (ffi),  said  by  Beal  (The  Romantic  Legend  of  Sakhya 
BuddJia,  p.  59,  note  1)  to  be  "  the  symbol  of  the  sun's  apparent  movement 
from  left  to  right."    But  see  Buddhism,  Monier  Williams,  pp.  522  and  523. 

2  The  mythical  school  is  generally  very  insistent  on  the  fact  that  aravpds 
merely  meant  a  stake  and  not  a  cross! 

3  We  read  here  of  the  marking  of  the  forehead  of  the  faithful  Judahites 
with  a  Tau,  the  symbol  of  life  (cf.  the  Egyptian  f  'nh,  "life,"  with  T,  the  Phoe- 
nician form  of  the  letter  Tau  found  in  the  older  variant  of  the  language, 
e.  g.,  on  the  Moabite  stone  and  in  the  Siloam  inscription),  to  save  them 
from  slaughter.  See  also  Rev.  7:3/.;  13  :  16  /.  ;  20  :  4,  and  perhaps  Gal. 
6  :  17.  "The  magic  virtue  ascribed  to  the  cross  has,  doubtless,  a  non- 
Christian  origin"  (Cheyne).  With  regard  to  the  'nh  (dnkh)  Doctor  Budge 
writes:  "The  object  which  is  represented  by  this  amulet  is  unknown,  and 
of  all  the  suggestions  which  have  been  made  none  is  more  unlikely  than 
that  which  would  give  it  a  phallic  origin"  (Egyptian  Magic,  1901,  p.  58). 


THE  CROSS  AND  ITS  ASTRAL  SIGNIFICANCE    285 

writers  as  the  mystical  Tau"  (Enc.  Bib.,  art.  " Cross," 
sec.  7). 

But  the  real  question,  after  all,  is,  what  has  this  to  do 
with  the  specific  use  of  the  cross  in  Christian  symbolism  ? 
And  the  answer  thereto  would  seem  to  be,  little  or  noth- 
ing, except  in  so  far  as  its  appropriateness  was  suggested 
to  the  Christians  of  the  first  and  later  centuries  by  the 
fact  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  There  is  no  proof  what- 
ever that  it  was  used  by  them  as  a  secret  society  symbol 
during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus  or  that  the  alleged  pre- 
Christian  cults  of  Jesus  and  Christ  ever  employed  it.  Its 
use,  too,  amongst  the  earlier  Jews,  legalists  or  mystics, 
is  unproven  and  at  least  doubtful.  As  for  its  mystical 
and  perhaps  religious  uses  in  various  parts  of  the  world, 
an  ample  justification  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  is  a  sym- 
bol easily  drawn  and  remembered,  and  commonly  used 
everywhere,  not  only  in  religion,  but  as  a  brief  memoran- 
dum of  matters  pertaining  to  daily  life.  Some  writers 
have  regarded  it  as  an  ancient  symbol  deriving  its  origin 
from  astral  worship  and  expressive  of  the  sun  crossing 
the  equatorial  fine  twice  yearly,  at  the  vernal  and  autum- 
nal equinoxes.  This  is  quite  possible,  as  we  know  that 
these  periods,  as  also  the  solstices,  were  important  fes- 
tivals in  all  forms  of  sun-worship.  But,  whether  or  not 
it  was  primarily  suggested  to  the  first  Christians  by  an- 
cient usage,  it  is  quite  certain  that  its  adoption  was 
sanctioned  chiefly  by  their  firm  conviction  that  it  was 
the  instrument  by  which  their  Master  suffered  death,  and 
that  it  was,  in  addition,  a  fitting  symbol  of  the  Christian 
life  of  tribulation  in  this  present  world.1 

1  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  refers — without  offering  proof — to  "the  phallic 
significance  of  the  cross" — as  he  terms  it. 

We  may  presume  that  he  is  thinking  of  the  Egyptian  dnkh,  or  handled 
cross,  carried  by  certain  gods  and  used  as  a  symbol  of  enduring  life.  But 
this  is  quite  different  from  the  phallus,  which  was  only  used  in  the  coarser 
ethnic  nature-cults  as  a  symbol  of  reproductive  energy. 


286   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

The  Crucifixion 

Professor  Drews  calls  into  serious  question  {The  Christ 
Myth,  pp.  146  ff.)  not  merely  the  fact  of  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus,  but  even  the  correctness  in  detail  of  the  de- 
scription of  that  event  as  given  by  the  several  evange- 
lists. We  will  deal  first  with  the  latter  of  these  objec- 
tions and  state  his  thesis  in  his  own  words: 

"In  the  whole  of  Christendom  it  passes  as  a  settled 
matter  that  Jesus  died  upon  the  cross;  but  this  has  the 
shape,  as  it  is  usually  represented  among  painters,  of  the 
so-called  Latin  cross,  in  which  the  horizontal  crosspiece 
is  shorter  than  the  vertical  beam.  On  what,  then,  does 
the  opinion  rest  that  the  cross  is  the  gibbet?  The  evan- 
gelists themselves  give  us  no  information  on  this  point. 
The  Jews  described  the  instrument  which  they  made  use 
of  in  executions  by  the  expression  "wood"  [%v\ov],  or 
"tree"  [Sevhpov,  arbor}.  Under  this  description  it  often 
occurs  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  which  the  gibbet  is  rendered  by  xulon,  the  same  expres- 
sion being  also  found  in  the  Gospels.  Usually,  however, 
the  gibbet  is  described  as  stauros  [aravpfc],  i.  e.,  "stake," 
so  much  so  that  stauros  and  xulon  pass  for  synonyms. 
The  Latin  translation  of  both  these  words  is  crux 
["cross"].  By  this  the  Romans  understood  any  appara- 
tus for  the  execution  of  men  generally,  without  think- 
ing, however,  as  a  rule,  of  anything  else  than  a  stake  or 
gallows  {patibulum,  stipes),  upon  which,  as  Livy  tells  us1 
(I,  26),  the  delinquent  was  bound  with  chains  or  ropes 
and  so  delivered  over  to  death. 

"That  the  method  of  execution  in  Palestine  differed 
in  any  way  from  this  is  not  in  any  way  shown.  Among 
the  Jews  also  the  condemned  used  to  be  hanged  upon  a 
simple  stake  or  beam  and  exposed  to  a  lingering  death 
from  heat,  hunger,  and  thirst,  as  well  as  from  the  natural 

1  Cf.  Cic,  Pro  Rab.,  4,  etc. 


THE  CRUCIFIXION  287 

tension  of  his  muscles.  'To  fasten  to  the  cross'  [stau- 
roun,  affigere  cruci),  accordingly,  does  not  mean  either  in 
East  or  West  to  crucify  in  our  sense,1  but  at  first  simply 
'to  torture'  or  'martyrpse],'  and  later  to  hang  upon  a 
stake  or  gallows.  ..."  As  there  are  many  errors  con- 
tained in  the  above  statement,  we  will  now  submit  it  to 
a  close  examination. 

In  the  earlier  Roman  times  capital  punishment  appears 
to  have  been  inflicted  by  tying  the  offender  to  the  j 'urea 
(a  heavy  wooden  instrument  shaped  liked  the  Greek  let- 
ter A)  or  to  the  patibulum  (supposed  to  have  the  form  of 
the  Greek  II).  He  was  then  either  flogged  to  death  or 
allowed  to  die  of  the  combined  effects  of  the  flogging  and 
exposure.2  Contact  with  the  East,  however,  introduced 
what  Lipsius  (De  Cruce,  I,  5-9)  and  Gretzer  (De  Cruce 
Christi,  I,  1)  call  the  crux  simplex,  i.  e.,  a  single  upright 
stake,  similar  to  that  used  in  Eastern  countries  for  the 
purpose  of  impalement,  to  which  the  criminal  was  tied. 

But  during  the  second  Punic  war  the  Romans  became 
acquainted  with  the  crux  composita,  or  true  cross,  to 
which  the  Carthaginians  were  accustomed  to  affix  the 
condemned  man  by  means  of  nails  driven  through  the 
hands  and  feet,  leaving  him  to  die  of  pain  and  exhaus- 
tion. To  both  of  these  instruments  of  death  the  term 
aravpos  (crux)  was  applied. 

In  the  case  of  Jews  the  earliest  and  authorised  form 
of  capital  punishment  was  stoning  (Lev.  20  :  20;  Deut. 
13  :  10);  but  in  post-exilic  times  a  limited  use  of  the 
crux  simplex,  or  stake,  grew  up.  To  this  stake  the  of- 
fender was  fastened  and  either  strangled  or  left  to  perish 
from  exposure.  During  the  reign  of  Alexander  Jannaeus 
(reigned  104-79  B.  C.)  true  crucifixion  was,  perhaps,  used, 
and  according  to  Josephus  (Ant.,  XIII,  14,  2)  many 
Pharisees  perished  in  this  way. 

1  Italics  ours.     The  Das  Kreuz  Christi  of  Zockler  should  be  consulted  here. 

2  Cf.  Livy,  I,  26,  sub  jurca  vinctus  inter  verbera  et  critciatus. 


288  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Turning  next  to  the  Greek  terms  employed  in  the  LXX 
version  and  the  New  Testament,  we  find  in  the  former 
work  a  general  use  of  Kpep.\xdwp.i  (Heb.,  H7H,  tdldh),"  to 
suspend"  or  "hang."  There  are  several  classical  examples 
of  this  in  the  book  of  Esther  (2  :  23;  5  :  14;  6:4;  7  :  10; 
8:7;  9  :  13).  In  7  :  9,  however,  we  find  o-TavpTjdriTCQ, 
and  it  would  seem  that  the  meaning  here  in  each  case  is 
suspension  from  a  post  and  not  impalement. 

Taking  the  New  Testament,  we  find  in  the  four  loci 
classici  (Mark  15  :  25;  Matt.  28  :  35;  Luke  23  :  33; 
John  19  :  19)  the  verb  o-ravpoco  used,  and  the  real  ques- 
tion is  in  what  sense  it  is  to  be  taken.  In  earlier  times 
it  would  probably  have  meant  merely  bound  to  a  stake; 
but  in  the  first  century  A.  D.  it  undoubtedly  means,  for 
reasons  given  above,  crucifixion  in  its  later  sense,  i.  e.,  a 
literal  nailing  to  the  cross  and  nothing  else.1  And  the 
mere  fact  that  the  old  term  Kpe/xficivvfiL  ("hang")  is  still 
employed  is  no  argument  to  the  contrary;  for  a  man 
nailed  to  a  cross  and  "lifted  up"  may  just  as  fitly  be 
said  to  hang  there.2 

But  Professor  Drews  seems  to  dispute  this  conclusion. 
He  continues  (op.  cit.,  p.  147):  "And  in  this  connexion 
it  appears  that  the  piercing  of  hands  and  feet  with  nails, 
at  least  at  the  time  at  which  the  execution  of  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  occurred,  was  something  quite  unusual,  if 
it  was  ever  employed  at  all?     The  expressions  prospassa- 

1  Cf.  also  Acts  2  :  36;  4  :  10;  I  Cor.  1  :  13  and  23;  2:2  and  8;  Gal.  3:1; 
Rev.  11:8. 

2  On  p.  498  of  his  article,  referred  to  above,  Mr.  Butler  (in  support  of  a 
theory  that  the  tomb  of  John  19  :  41  was  merely  a  "memorial  place") 
urges  that  the  verb  crravpoo}  never  signified,  in  true  classical  Greek,  "to  cru- 
cify," but  "to  impalisade"  or  "fence  off."  This  is  true;  but  the  Gospels 
were  written  neither  in  classical  Greek  nor  in  classical  times,  and  words  had 
frequently  acquired  a  new  meaning  in  the  days  of  the  Roman  supremacy. 
Consequently,  his  rendering  of  both  iaravp^d-n  and  p.vqixetov  in  the  above 
passage  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  untenable,  and  there  is  no  analogy,  as  he 
supposes,  between  the  tomb  and  the  mystical  <tt;k6j  of  Demeter. 

3  Italics  ours. 


THE  CRUCIFIXION  289 

leuein  and  proseloun,  moreover,  usually  signify  only  "to 
fasten/'  "to  hang  upon  a  nail,"  but  not  at  all  "to  nail 
to"  in  the  special  sense  required. 

"There  is  not,  then,"  he  adds,  "the  least  occasion  for 
assuming  that  according  to  original  Christian  views  an 
exception  to  this  mode  of  proceeding  was  made  at  the 
execution  of  Jesus.  The  only  place  in  the  Gospels  where 
there  is  any  mention  of  the  "marks  of  the  nails"  (viz., 
John  20  :  25)  belongs,  as  does  the  whole  Gospel,  to  a 
relatively  later  time,  and  appears,  as  does  much  in  John, 
as  a  mere  strengthening  and  exaggeration  of  the  original 
story.  For  example,  Luke  24  :  39,  upon  which  John  is 
based,  does  not  speak  at  all  of  nail-marks,  but  merely  of 
the  marks  of  the  wounds  which  the  condemned  must 
naturally  have  received  as  a  consequence  of  being  fast- 
ened to  the  stake.  Accordingly,  the  idea  that  Christ 
was  'nailed'  to  the  cross  was  in  the  earliest  Christian- 
ity by  no  means  the  ruling  one." 

If  Doctor  Drews  means  in  the  above  passage  that  nails 
were  not  usually  employed  by  the  Romans  as  early  as, 
and  even  earlier  than,  A.  D.  30  to  affix  criminals  to  the 
cross,  he  certainly  cannot  have  consulted  the  Latin  wri- 
ters. Thus,  Plautus,  who  died  as  early  as  B.  C.  184,  re- 
fers (Most.,  II,  1,  13)  to  a  man  condemned  to  the  cross 
who  seeks  a  substitute,  humorously  promising  a  reward 
on  the  condition  that  "they  [the  nails]  are  driven  twice 
into  the  feet  and  twice  into  the  arms,"  *  an  expression 
not  in  any  way  suggestive  of  roping  or  chaining,  but 
plainly  meaning  that  each  foot  and  hand  should  be  sev- 
erally affixed  by  means  of  a  nail.  This  view  is  also  sup- 
ported by  Jewish  evidence  {Hot.  Heb.,  p.  57,  Lightfoot), 

1  Offigantur  bis  pedes,  bis  brachia.  A  nail  from  the  cross  was  also  used  in 
certain  magical  ceremonies  (Apuleius,  Metamorphoses,  book  III,  Bonn's 
translation,  p.  59;  Pliny,  H.  N.,  XXVIII,  n).  In  Col.  2  :  14  we  have  the 
phrase  trpoa-qX^aas  atrrb  tQ  aravp<2,  "nailing  it  to  his  (lit.,  the)  cross,"  re- 
ferring to  an  ancient  method  of  cancelling  bonds  by  driving  a  nail  through 
them. 


290    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

and  Josephus  tells  us  (Life,  75)  that  out  of  three  friends 
whom  he  had  once  rescued  from  the  cross  only  one  sur- 
vived, though  they  were  most  carefully  tended  by  a  phy- 
sician. This  again  points  strongly  to  death  from  actual 
wounds  rather  than  from  exposure  or  any  preliminary 
flogging  which  they  may  have  received. 

Further,  although  the  evidence  of  John  20  :  25,  with 
its  reference  to  the  nail-holes  in  the  feet  and  hands,  is 
late  and,  therefore,  perhaps  inconclusive,  the  statement 
in  Luke  24  :  39  undoubtedly  means  that  the  wounds 
were  caused  by  the  piercing  of  the  limbs  and  were  not 
mere  abrasions  caused  by  ropes  or  chains,  which  would 
cause  much  less  severe  injuries. 

But  Doctor  Drews's  object  in  bringing  into  the  discus- 
sion the  Greek  word  Trpoairaaaakeveiv  is  not  clear,  since 
the  word  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testament;  and 
irpoaekovv,  which  is  seldom  used,  could  not  here  mean, 
as  he  urges,  to  "hang  upon  a  nail,"  because  the  cruciarii 
were  never  hung  upon  nails,  but  either  tied  to  the  cross 
itself  or,  in  the  case  of  slaves  and  persons  convicted  of 
treason  (perduellio),  literally  nailed  to  the  wood,  as  is 
abundantly  testified  by  ancient  writers.1 

M.  Salomon  Reinach,  to  whom  we  will  turn  next,  ap- 
pears to  waver  in  his  view  of  the  origin  of  the  idea  of 
the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  At  one  time  (Orpheus,  p.  32)  he 
quotes,  "They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet"  (Psalm 
22  :  17),  and  says:  "We  must  admit  that  this  verse  in 
the  Psalms  may  be  the  origin  of  the  tradition  that  Jesus 
was  crucified."    But  at  another  time  he  appears  to  re- 

1  The  whole  scene  of  a  Roman  crucifixion  is,  indeed,  most  carefully  and 
accurately  described  by  the  evangelists.  We  have  the  preliminary  flogging 
of  the  cruciarlus,  who  generally  carried  his  alrla  ("charge")  suspended 
round  his  neck  to  the  place  of  execution.  Soldiers  were  set  to  watch  him 
and  a  stupefying  draught  was  offered  (cf.  Bab.  Talm.,  Sanh.  Tract.,  /.  43,  1) 
to  lull  the  pain  caused  by  the  nails.  The  breaking  of  the  legs  (criirifragium) 
was  also  distinctively  a  Roman  practise,  especially  in  the  case  of  slaves 
(Seneca,  De  Ira,  III,  32;   Suet.,  Aug.,  67;  Tert.,  Ap.  21). 


THE  CRUCIFIXION  291 

gard  the  story  as  an  "orphic  projection  made  through 
the  lens  of  a  passage  in  Plato's  Republic  about  the  im- 
palement of  the  perfectly  just  man  who  should  happen 
to  stray  into,  or  turn  up  in,  a  community  of  unjust  men" 
(J.  Rendel  Harris). 

In  a  similar  manner  Professor  W.  B.  Smith  (Ecce  Dens, 
p.  142)  lays  a  great  stress  upon  this  ill  treatment  of  the 
"just  man."  He  says:  "The  notion  of  the  impalement 
of  the  righteous  man  found  its  classical  and  immortal 
expression  in  the  second  book  of  The  Republic  in  a  con- 
text of  matchless  moral  sublimity.  Glaucon,  putting 
Socrates  on  his  mettle,  draws  the  liveliest  possible  pic- 
ture of  the  sufferings  of  the  just  who  is  thought  unjust: 
1  He  will  be  scourged,  will  be  racked,  will  be  bound,  will 
have  his  eyes  burned  out,  (and)  at  last,  having  suffered 
every  ill,  he  will  be  crucified  (361  D).' 

"The  last  verb  (avacr'xivhvkevai)  is  commonly  rendered 
by  ' impale'  and  is  rare;  but  it  is  the  exact  equivalent  of 
ava(TKo\o7rl^(oy  which,  again,  is  exactly  the  same  as  avaa- 
ravpoa)  (as  in  Philo,  I,  237  and  687),  which  appears  in 
Heb.  6  :  6  (where  it  has  been  falsely  rendered  '  crucify 
again')  and  is  the  regular  Greek  word  for  'crucify/ 
shortened  also  into  crravpoco,  the  New  Testament  term. 
The  ava  means  'up'  and  not  'again.'  " 

Dealing  first  of  all  with  the  former  suggestion  of  M. 
Reinach,  we  would  reply  that  the  passage  in  the  Psalms 
is  undoubtedly  corrupt  and  the  reading  here  rendered 
"pierced"  consequently  uncertain.  But,  in  any  case, 
•HJO  (ka-ari)  does  not  mean  "pierced"  as  in  a  crucifixion. 
It  refers  here  rather  to  the  biting  of  wild  animals  of  some 
kind  (see  Appendix  C). 

As  to  the  passage  from  The  Republic  of  Plato,  the  late 
Professor  Jowett  (The  Dialogues  of  Plato,  vol.  Ill,  p.  41) 
translates  the  verb  avaa')(ivhv\evco}  "impaled,"  and  not 
"crucified."  Turning  to  the  lexicon  of  Liddell  and  Scott, 
we  find  that  the  verbs  avacrKoXoiri^w  and  avaaravpoco  be- 


292    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

came  practically  synonymous  in  later  Greek;  but  they 
certainly  were  not  so  in  Plato's  time.  Therefore,  we  have 
no  authority  for  treating  avaax^hvKevw  as  the  equivalent 
of  avaaravpoco  and  translating  the  former  verb  (as  used 
by  Plato)  "crucified." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  true  crucifixion  was  unknown  to 
the  Greeks  of  Plato's  day  and  was  not  at  that  time  prac- 
tised in  western  Asia.  The  force  of  ava  in  composition, 
we  may  add,  according  to  Liddell  and  Scott,  is  frequently 
that  of  repetition — as  well  as  "up."  Hence  the  rendering 
"crucify  afresh"  or  "again,"  in  Heb.  6  :  6,  cannot  be 
termed  "false."  As  it  makes  the  better  sense,  too,  with 
the  context,  it  is  probably  the  correct  one. 

Orpheus,  in  the  myth,  is  merely  one  of  the  many  repre- 
sentatives of  the  god  torn  to  pieces  every  year  by  the 
envious  powers  of  nature,  a  ceremony  which  was  enacted 
by  the  Bacchae  in  earlier  times  with  a  man,  but  after- 
wards with  a  bull  who  represented  the  god.  The  god  of 
all  these  nature-myths  is  ever  a  manifestation  of  the  re- 
productive power  of  nature,  and  how  it  could  in  any  way 
be  syncretised  with  the  ethical  "just  man"  of  Plato,  or 
the  ethrcal  and  spiritual  figure  of  Jesus,  is  not  explained 
and,  moreover,  is  impossible  to  understand. 

Finally,  Mr.  J.M.  Robertson  endeavours  (Pagan  Christs, 
191 1,  pp.  108  /.)  to  explain  the  idea  of  the  story  from  a 
custom  which  formerly  prevailed  among  the  Khonds  of 
India.  The  victim  was  garlanded  with  flowers  and  wor- 
shipped. He  was  then  inserted  into  the  trunk  of  a  tree 
in  such  a  manner  that  he  and  the  tree  formed  a  cross. 
His  arms  and  legs  were  then  broken  and  he  was  made 
insensible  with  opium,  or  datura,  and  finally  put  to 
death.1 

There  is  some  very  vague  resemblance  here  to  the  story 
of  the  crucifixion;  but  it  is  not  explained  how  this  came 

1  See  Frazer's  Golden  Bough,  "The  Dying  God,"  3d  ed.,  p.  139.  On  Odin 
as  the  "hanged  god,"  see  Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris,  3d  ed.,  pp.  288  Jf. 


THE  TWO  THIEVES  293 

to  be  adopted  by  the  earliest  Christians,  who  were  bit- 
terly hostile  to  all  heathen  ideas  and  practises.  It  would 
seem  that  any  such  theory  of  origins  must  be  the  last 
resource  of  some  desperate  anthropologist.1 

The  Two  Thieves 

In  his  article,  "Die  Kreuzigung  Jesu,"  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fur  die  neutestantentliche  Wissenschafi,  II  (1901),  pp.  339- 
341,  Doctor  W.  R.  Paton  has  hazarded  the  opinion  that 
the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  between  the  two  robbers  had  a 
ritual  significance  "as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  to  a  triple 
god."  It  seems  that  a  Persian  martyr,  St.  Hiztibouzit, 
is  said  to  have  been  crucified  between  two  malefactors 
on  a  hilltop  opposite  the  sun  (see  The  Apology  and  Acts  of 
Apollonius  and  Other  Monuments  of  Early  Christianity, 
1894,  by  F.  C.  Conybeare,  pp.  257  jf.).  The  narrator, 
however,  does  not  attach  any  religious  significance  to 
the  triple  execution,  and  we  may  readily  agree  with  Sir 
James  Frazer  that  "the  grounds  for  the  conjecture  are 
somewhat  slender"  ("  The  Scapegoat,"  p.  413,  note  2). 

Professor  Drews,  again  {The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  82  and 
83),  finds  another  explanation  of  the  two  criminals  who 
were  crucified  with  Jesus. 

"The  story,"  he  writes,  "of  the  two  fellow  prisoners 
of  Joseph,  the  baker  and  the  cup-bearer  of  Pharaoh,  one 
of  whom,  as  Joseph  foretold,  was  hanged,  while  the  other 
was  received  into  favour  by  the  king,  was  transformed 
by  them  [i.  e.,  the  evangelists]  into  the  story  of  the  two 
robbers  who  were  executed  at  the  same  time  as  Jesus, 
one  of  whom  mocked  the  Saviour,  while  the  other  be- 

1  Fiebig  says  of  the  "darkness"  which  is  said  to  have  occurred  at  the  time 
of  the  crucifixion  that  it  is  "certainly  mythical."  But  o-/c6ros  (Matt.  27  :  45) 
also  means  "gloom,"  and  Humboldt  relates  in  his  Cosmos  that  "in  the  year 
358,  before  the  earthquake  of  Numidia,  the  darkness  was  very  intense  for 
two  or  three  hours."  According  to  vs.  51  there  was  an  earthquake  on  this 
occasion  also. 


294     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

sought  him  to  remember  him  when  he  entered  into  his 
heavenly  kingdom." 

The  two  stories,  it  must  be  pointed  out,  are  utterly 
unlike,  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  either  of  them  should 
suggest  the  other.  But,  setting  this  fact  aside,  Professor 
Drews's  dogmatic  statement  raises  a  number  of  recon- 
dite and  difficult  questions.  In  the  first  place,  was  Jo- 
seph a  divine  being,  the  representative,  like  the  various 
solar  heroes,  and  (Doctor  Drews  would  add)  Jesus,  of 
the  sun  ?  l  It  is  impossible  to  dogmatise  here,  but  any 
theory  based  upon  such  assumptions  is  precarious  in  the 
highest  degree. 

Again,  Mr.  Robertson  (Pagan  Christs,  191 1,  pp.  108/.) 
explains  the  origin  of  this  incident  as  follows:  In  former 
ages  a  king's  son  was  sacrificed;  later,  when  criminals 
were  substituted,  one  of  them  was  represented  as  a  king 
by  having  two  others  in  their  real  character  as  evil-doers 
set  up  by  his  side.  But  where  is  the  proof  of  this  ?  None 
is  offered,  and  as  the  statement  stands  in  the  book  it  is 
mere  fanciful  assertion.  Without  specific  examples  of 
such  a  custom  these  "  explanations "  explain  nothing. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  story  of  the  evangelists  is  quite 
as  consistent  with  actual  Roman  practise  as  it  is  with 
unregenerate  human  nature  at  all  times  and  in  all  places. 

The  Seamless  Tunic 

The  idea  of  providing  a  pseudo-historical  Jesus  with  a 
seamless  coat  was,  if  we  may  credit  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson 
(Christianity  and  Mythology,  pp.  414  and  415),  derived 
from  the  story  of  the  chiton  woven  for  Apollo  or  the  shawl 
woven  for  Here  at  Elis.  These  garments  have,  he  says 
(ostensibly   quoting   Plutarch),    a   mystical   significance, 

1  The  name  Joseph  may  be  taken  as  Jo-SePh  (Ja-SePh),  "  Jahveh  add  to 
me  another  son,"  Gen.  30  :  24).  In  vs.  23  it  is  explained  as  "God  has  taken 
away  (a-SaPh)  my  reproach.  See  Sayce,  Hibb.  Lects.  (1887),  pp.  50-52; 
also  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  pp.  337_339- 


THE  LAST  WORDS  OF  JESUS  295 

since  they  represent  "the  robe  of  the  solar  Osiris,  which 
is  one  and  indivisible,  that  robe  being  the  universal 
light." 

The  reference  here  is  evidently  to  the  De  Iside  et  Osi- 
ride,  78,  where  Plutarch  writes:  "That  [vestment]  of 
Osiris  has  no  shadow  nor  variation,  but  is  one,  simple, 
the  image  of  light."  The  quotation,  it  will  be  observed, 
is  inaccurate  and  the  inference  drawn  inexact. 

We  need  not,  however,  depart  from  plain,  sober  his- 
tory here.  Jewish  tunics,  as  a  rule,  consisted  of  two  sep- 
arate parts  which  were  held  together  by  clasps;  but 
Josephus  tells  us  {Ant.,  Ill,  7,  4)  that  a  single  seamless 
tunic  was  habitually  worn  by  the  high  priests.  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  single  tunics  were  in  some  cases 
woven  all  in  one  without  any  seam.1 

The  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  is  true,  lays  some 
stress  upon  the  seamlessness  of  the  garment.  He  seems 
to  find  in  it  a  mystical  meaning,  perhaps  that  of  indicat- 
ing that  Jesus  acted  as  his  own  high  priest  in  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself.  But  this,  in  any  case,  does  not  affect  the 
question  at  issue. 

The  Last  Words  of  Jesus 

Here  we  must  again  quote  Mr.  Slade  Butler  {Art.  cit., 
p.  496):  "After  the  illumination  or  consecration  of  the 
mystes  was  completed,"  he  says,  "a  sacred  formula  was 
uttered  to  show  that  the  ceremony  was  over.  What  that 
formula  was  does  not  seem  to  be  known,  though  it  has 
been  said  by  some  to  have  been  the  words  /cdyZ  o/xira^ 

1  Seydel  (Evangelium,  etc.,  pp.  282  and  299;  cf.  Buddha  Legende,  p.  123,  re- 
fers the  story  of  the  division  of  the  clothes  of  Jesus  (John  19  :  23/.)  to  one 
told  in  the  Mahaparinibbana  Sutta,  VI,  51  jf.)  of  a  quarrel  over  the  relics 
of  the  defunct  Buddha,  which  is  finally  settled  by  a  Brahman.  It  is  un- 
necessary here  to  say  more  than  that  the  two  stories  are  totally  unlike 
and  that  the  clothes  of  a  condemned  man  have  ever  been  the  perquisite 
of  the  executioner. 

There  arises  also  the  question  of  priority  of  the  narratives. 


296    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

or  tcoyl;  oijlolcds  77-af,1  the  first  word  denoting  the  sound 
made  by  the  voting  pebble  as  it  fell  into  the  urn,  and  so 
'the  vote  is  cast,'  the  other  words  meaning  'likewise 
enough,'  the  formula,  therefore,  signifying  'all  is  over.' 
Now,  the  last  saying,  or  utterance,  on  the  cross  is,  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (John  19  :  30),  represented  by  the  word 
Tere\earai}  which  in  one  sense  means  'it  is  finished'; 
but  reXeo),  'to  perform,'  has  in  the  passive  a  further 
meaning,  viz.,  'to  be  initiated'  or  'consecrated'  in  the 
mysteries — and  more  particularly  in  the  last  or  highest 
grade  of  the  Eleusinian  mysteries — just  as  rekerrj  means 
'the  end'  as  well  as  'the  rite  of  initiation.'  To  a  Greek 
— and  especially  one  who  had  passed  through  the  mys- 
teries— the  word  TereXecrTcu  would  have  the  double  mean- 
ing 'all  is  over'  and  'the  consecration  is  complete.' 

"It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  words  of  the  last  utterance 
on  the  cross  are  omitted  in  Mark  (15  :  37)  and  in  Mat- 
thew (28  :  50),  as  though  they  were  not  known  or  were 
too  sacred  to  be  reproduced  in  writing." 

Mr.  Butler's  attempt  to  equate  the  final  TerekecnaL 
("It  is  finished")  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  the  myste- 
rious formula  used  as  the  final  benediction  of  the  hiero- 
phant  of  Eleusis  is  a  very  precarious  essay  in  criticism. 
The  konx  om  pax  of  the  latter  has  absolutely  no  meaning 
in  its  Greek  form,  and  is  generally  believed  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  East,  where  perhaps  it  had  a  mystical 
sense  attached  to  it.  Wilford  gives  the  words  a  Sanscrit 
origin  and  explains  them  as  follows :  konx  from  kansha  = 
the  object  of  strongest  desire;  om  from  oum  (aum)  =  the 
soul  of  Brahma;  pax  from  pasha  =  turn,  change,  cycle. 
This  apparently  meaningless  jumble  of  words,  he  con- 
cludes, signifies:  "May  thy  desires  be  fulfilled;  return 
to  the  universal  soul !" 

But  this  interpretation  is  doubtful  in  the  extreme,  and 
it  is  practically  certain  that  the  real  meaning  of  the  Eleu- 

1  Konx  ompax  or  konx  homoios  pax. 


LANCE  WOUND  AND  BREAKING  OF  THE  LEGS    297 

sinian  formula  is  lost.  One  thing,  however,  may  safely 
be  taken  as  fact;  whatever  it  may  mean  it  does  not 
signify  "It  is  finished"   (rereXea-Tai) . 

The  last  "word  from  the  cross"  is  the  final  exclama- 
tion of  a  weary  man  who  has  just  fought  and  finished  a 
long  and  bitter  fight  and  feels  that  at  last  he  has  come 
off  conqueror.  It  is  in  no  sense  a  benediction  either;  the 
final  benediction  of  Jesus  upon  his  murderers  and  their 
wretched  tools  was  fitly  expressed  in  that  other  "word" 
recorded  in  Luke  23  :  34:  " Father,  forgive  them;  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do."  l 

The  Lance  Wound  and  the  Breaking  of  the  Legs 

"The  transfixing  of  the  victim  with  the  holy  lance," 
writes  Professor  Drews  {The  Christ  Myth,  p.  97,  note  3), 
"as  we  meet  it  in  John  19  :  34,  appears  to  be  a  very  old 
sacrificial  custom  which  is  found  among  the  most  differ- 
ent races.  For  example,  [it  is  met  with]  both  among  the 
Scythian  tribes  in  Albania,  in  the  worship  of  Astarte 
(Strabo),  and  in  Salamis,  in  the  island  of  Cyprus,  in  that 
of  Moloch  (Eusebius,  Prcep.  Evang.,  IV,  16).  'The  lance 
thrust,'  says  Ghillany,  with  reference  to  the  death  of 
Jesus,  was  not  given  with  the  object  of  testing  whether 
the  sufferer  was  still  alive,  but  was  in  order  to  correspond 

1  On  p.  497  of  the  same  article  we  also  find:  "There  are  also  other  details 
in  the  Gospel  narrative  in  which  a  Greek  might  see  allusions  to  the  mysteries 
just  as  a  Jew  might  recognise  in  the  same  words  a  reference  to  his  prophets; 
thus  in  the  words,  'but  he  held  his  peace  and  answered  nothing'  (Mark 
14  :  61;  Matt.  26  :  63)  'and  he  gave  him  no  answer,  not  even  to  one 
word'  (Matt.  27  :  14),  a  Greek  would  recognise  the  closed,  sealed  lips  of 
the  mystes,  while  a  Jew  might  think  that  he  saw  in  them  a  reference  to  the 
writings."  The  very  vague  analogies  to  the  mysteries  pointed  out  here 
really  prove  nothing;  and  the  mere  fact  that  to  the  Jew  they  had  quite  a 
different  meaning  shows  this  very  clearly.  Jesus  held  his  peace  when  a  false 
charge  was  preferred  against  him  and  when  he  knew  that  his  death  had  been 
predetermined  by  the  Jewish  authorities.  No  purpose  was  served  by  mak- 
ing any  answer.  The  mystes,  on  the  other  hand,  was  mute  because  a  secret 
had  been  confided  to  him  in  initiation  which  he  must  not  divulge. 

The  two  cases  are  poles  apart  and  all  comparison  between  them  is  fanci- 
ful and  unreal. 


298    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

with  the  old  method  of  sacrificing.  The  legs  were  not 
broken  because  the  victim  could  not  be  mutilated.  In 
the  evening  the  corpse  had  to  be  taken  down,  just  as 
Joshua  only  allowed  the  kings  sacrificed  to  the  sun  to 
remain  until  the  evening  on  the  cross.'  " 

The  learned  German  writer  above  cited  is  apparently 
under  a  misapprehension  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  author 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  latter  does  not  say,  or  imply, 
that  the  soldier  thought  Jesus  might  be  alive,  for  in  vs.  32 
it  is  distinctly  stated  that  they  saw  that  he  was  dead  al- 
ready. But  the  "holy  lance,"  as  used  in  early  times  in 
the  sacrifices  of  nomadic  races,  was  certainly  employed 
for  the  slaying  of  the  victim  whatever  the  later  import 
of  the  act  may  have  been.  Had  the  Gospel  writer  in- 
tended to  illustrate  any  such  later  custom  here  he  would 
probably  have  inserted  the  incident  earlier  in  the  chap- 
ter or  else  omitted  vs.  32.  As  matters  stand,  his  object  in 
mentioning  the  incident  is  clear  to  any  one  whose  mind 
is  not  obsessed  by  some  other  and  a  priori  theory.  He 
states  that  he  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  scene.  He  saw 
the  soldiers  set  about  the  crurifragium,  and  noticed  the 
exemption  accorded  to  Jesus,  for  the  reason  which  he 
gives.  But  a  sudden  and  irrational  impulse  to  stab  the 
body  with  his  spear  seized  one  of  the  soldiers.  Both 
these  events  struck  the  writer  as  being  unconscious  and 
involuntary  fulfilments  of  two  scriptures1 — not  as  an- 
cient sacrificial  customs.  He  was  struck  also  with  what 
appeared  to  him  as  blood  and  water  flowing  from  the 
spear  wound.2  This,  on  reflection,  appeared  to  have  a 
spiritual  significance  (cf.  I  John    5  :  6),  as  symbolical  of 

1  (1)  Ex.  12  :  46.  This  rule  is  commonly  laid  down  in  the  ritual  of  all 
religious  sacrifices.  The  victims  must  be  perfect.  (2)  Psalm  22  :  16  and  17. 
This  quotation  is  not  apposite.  The  Hebrew  word  used  means  "to  gnaw," 
or  "bite, "  like  a  dog  or  lion.    See  Appendix  C. 

2  A  book  has  been  written  (A  Treatise  on  the  Physical  Cause  of  the  Death 
of  Christ,  by  W.  Stroud,  M.D.,  1st  ed.,  1847)  explaining  the  death  of  Jesus 
as  due  to  rupture  of  the  heart,  the  blood  in  which,  the  author  thinks,  may 


THE  BURIAL  IN  THE  NEW  TOMB  299 

the  work  of  redemption  (by  blood,  Lev.  4  :  6)  and  regen- 
eration (by  water,  Num.  8:7).  There  is  not  a  shadow 
of  reason  to  suppose  here  that  the  writer  is,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  perpetrating  on  his  readers  a  mere  pseudo- 
historisation  of  an  ancient  custom,  though  it  may  hap- 
pen that  this  incident  has  some  affinity  with  the  Jewish 
sacrificial  rules,  of  which  he  was  evidently  thinking  at  the 
time  of  writing.  Moreover,  had  the  evangelist  regarded 
the  scene  he  describes  as  merely  a  sacrificial  drama  he 
would  have  probably  included  the  thieves  also,  whose 
legs  in  that  case,  like  those  of  the  chief  victim,  would 
have  remained  unbroken. 

Doctor  Ghillany's  assumption  that  the  five  kings  hanged 
on  stakes  (Joshua  10  :  26)  were  a  sacrifice  to  the  sun-god 
is  a  mere  begging  of  the  question.  Makkedah  ("place  of 
shepherds,"  Ges.  Lex.)  has  no  apparent  connexion  with 
any  solar  cult.  The  war  in  which  they  are  said  to  have 
lost  their  lives  seems  to  have  been  one  of  those  semi- 
barbarous  contests,  on  a  small  scale,  in  which  a  subse- 
quent massacre  of  important  prisoners  is  a  common  fea- 
ture. And  the  reason  for  their  burial  at  sundown  (as  also 
for  the  taking  down  of  Jesus  and  the  two  malefactors) — ■ 
"that  the  land  be  not  defiled" — was  part  of  an  old  crim- 
inal code  afterwards  embodied  in  Deut.  21  :  23. 

The  Burial  in  the  New  Tomb 

This  event,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  is 
traced  to  Greek  mystical  sources  by  Mr.  Slade  Butler. 
He  says  in  the  article  already  quoted:  "In  the  mysteries 
we  are  told  that '  some  kind  of  memento  of  the  ceremony 

have  escaped  into  the  pericardium,  where  it  separated  into  a  mass  of  clotted 
red  corpuscles  and  serum,  which  was  set  free  by  the  spear  piercing  the  sac. 
This  theory  has  been  adversely  criticised  by  Doctor  Creighton  (Enc.  Bib., 
art.  "Cross,"  sec.  6).  The  most  probable  explanation  is  that  death  ensued 
from  syncope;  but  the  witness  observing  the  blood  mingled  with  the  death 
sweat  (often  copious  before  a  painful  death)  incorrectly  assumed  that  both 
issued  from  the  spear  wound. 


300    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

(the  7rapd&o(n<;  rcov  lepwv)  was  given  by  the  priests  to  the 
votaries,  which  a  believer  used  to  keep  in  a  linen  cloth/ 
In  Mark  (15  :  46)  we  read  of  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  'who 
also  himself  was  Jesus'  disciple/  that  'he  bought  a  linen 
cloth  and,  taking  him  down,  wound  him  in  the  linen  cloth, 
and  laid  him  in  a  memorial  place  (pvri neico)  which  had 
been  hewn  out  of  a  rock.'  Why  is  this  word  /jlvt} /xelov 
used  to  signify  'a  tomb'  instead  of  the  usual  and  ordi- 
nary word  Tcicftos?  Mvrj fielop  (fii/jLvytr/cofiai,  'to  bear  in 
mind';  fidco,  'to  desire')  means  'remembrance/  then  'a 
memorial/  and  so  'a  monument'  raised  in  memory  of 
the  dead  [a  cenotaph],  but  not  the  tomb  in  which  the 
dead  body  was  laid;  yet  in  the  Gospels  the  word  seems 
to  be  intended  to  signify  'tomb'  as  well  as  'remem- 
brance'— a  'tomb  of  memory.'  The  reason  for  this  use 
of  the  word  fjivy/xelov  in  place  of  and  with  the  meaning 
of  rdcfxx;  cannot  be  explained  by  the  suggestion  that  the 
word  Tacjyos  had  fallen  into  disuse,  for  in  Matthew's  ac- 
count, which  was  written  some  time  after  Mark's  Gospel 
was  compiled,  we  find  that  the  word  rac^o?  appears  ex- 
actly as  many  times — four  times — as  jjlvt] jielov  is  used,  as 
though  the  writer  had  some  apprehension  that  the  word 
fivr]fjL€lov}  which  he  had  taken  and  adapted  from  Mark  (or 
the  source  of  information  used  by  Mark),  might  be  mis- 
understood." 

In  this  thesis  presented  by  Mr.  Butler  the  whole  stress 
of  his  argument  is  laid  upon  the  use  of  the  word  iwr\ /xelov 
instead  of  rdfos.  Now,  undoubtedly,  the  earliest  and 
general  Greek  prose  word  for  grave,  after  the  time  of 
Homer,  was  Tacpos.  But  in  later  and  post-classical  times, 
as  the  stones  which  were  set  over  or  before  graves  be- 
came more  and  more  elaborate,  and  served  more  and 
more  the  purposes  of  memorials,  especially  in  the  case 
of  notable  men,  the  term  rdfos,  though  still  used,  largely 
gave  place  to  the  word  fjLvrj/xelov  (fivfjfia),  by  which  the 
burying-place  of  the  dead  man  was  kept  in  mind  by  sue- 


THE  BURIAL  IN  THE  NEW  TOMB  301 

ceeding  generations.  And  in  the  New  Testament  pe- 
riod this  later  word  was  often  used  in  Greece  and  else- 
where almost  exclusively  for  Ta'(/>o?  in  such  cases. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  LXX  version  and  see  how  far 
that  work  supports  this  view.  In  Gen.  23  we  readily  find 
four  examples  (vss.  6,  9,  20  twice).  In  three  of  these 
fjivrj/jLelov  is  undoubtedly  used  where  a  tomb  containing  a 
body  is  meant.  In  vs.  20,  however,  this  is  first  named 
a  rdfo?,  and  then,  in  the  same  verse,  called  a  \ivr\\xdov. 
Other  examples  in  the  LXX  version,  taken  at  random, 
are  Ex.  14  :  n,  where  fjivfj/xa  means  a  grave,  not  a  cen- 
otaph or  mere  memorial  place;  Num.  n  :  34  and  35; 
19  :  16;  and  Ezek.  33  :  23.  Another  example  occurs  [in 
Josephus,  Ant.,  XIII,  6,  6.  In  the  face  of  these  facts — 
which  might  be  multiplied  considerably — it  is  impossible 
to  maintain  that  /xvyfjielov  in  later  times  invariably  meant 
a  cenotaph,  or  other  mere  memorial  of  a  dead  person,  and 
never  a  tomb  which  was  the  actual  grave  of  the  deceased. 

This  conclusion  is  further  borne  out  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment use  of  the  word.  The  present  writer,  in  making  a 
by  no  means  exhaustive  list,  has  found  therein  nineteen 
examples  of  /jlvtj  fielov  (with  three  of  fivrj^a),  as  opposed 
to  four  cases  of  ra^>o?  in  Matthew.  Some  of  these  un- 
doubtedly refer  to  actual  graves,  e.  g.,  Matt.  8  ;  28,  where 
the  allusion  is  to  the  rock  tombs  by  the  side  of  the 
lake  Gennesaret,  the  abode  of  the  demoniacs  who  dwelt 
among  the  bodies  of  the  dead. 

As  for  the  subsidiary  details,  Mr.  Butler  surely  can- 
not mean  to  compare  the  memento,  wrapped  in  linen 
cloth,  given  to  initiates  in  the  higher  mysteries,  with  the 
body  of  Jesus  wound  in  linen  bands  by  Joseph  of  Ari- 
matha^a !  A  corpse  was  not  wrapt  in  linen  and  given  to 
any  one  as  a  memento  of  initiation !  Neither  is  Joseph 
himself  supposed  to  be  keeping  it  as  a  memorial.  And 
linen  cloths  have  served  to  enwrap  many  other  things 
besides  bodies  and  mementos. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  DESCENSION  TO  HADES.   THE  RESURRECTION  AND 

ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN 

The  Descension  to  Hades 

The  theological  tradition  of  the  descent  of  Jesus  to  the 
nether  world,  which  forms  a  separate  article  of  the  faith 
in  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  (though  it  was  omitted 
in  the  symbol  of  Nicaea),  is  largely  based  upon  the  well- 
known  passage  in  I  Peter  3  :  191  (cf.  Eph.  8:9). 

It  has  been  the  practise  of  many  scholars  for  some 
years  past  to  trace  this  tradition  back  to  the  mytholog- 
ical conceptions  of  various  races  and  nations — Mandae- 
ans,  Babylonians,  Greeks,  Persians,  etc.  Even  Buddhist 
eschatology  has  been  drawn  upon  in  the  search  for  "  ori- 
gins' '  or  at  least  " parallels."  We  will  now  examine  the 
chief  of  these  and  see  how  far  they  can  be  said  to  corre- 
spond with  Christian  ideas  and  teaching. 

Perhaps  the  oldest  extant  story  of  this  kind  is  that  of 
the  now  well-known  "Descent  of  Istar"  to  the  under- 
world— "the  land  of  no  return,"2  as  it  is  pathetically 

1  It  is  doubtful  here,  however,  whether  the  preacher  is  Christ  or  Enoch. 
Doctor  Rendel  Harris  reads  iv  y  Kal  'Evi&x  (Expositor,  April,  1901),  which 
is  a  plausible  correction,  as  a  copyist  might  easily  omit  'Evi6x  after  £v  <$.  It 
is  also  uncertain  whether  the  "spirits  in  prison"  are  not  the  rebel  angels 
spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Enoch. 

Other  passages  more  or  less  definitely  referring  to  the  descent,  or  perhaps 
throwing  light  upon  it,  are:  Matt.  12  :  40;  Luke  23  :  43;  Acts  2  :  24,  27, 
and  31;  Romans  10  :  7  (on  Deut.  30  :  13),  but  note  alteration  in  text  of  the 
LXX  version  here;  Eph.  4:9;  Rev.  1  :  18.  See  also  Wisd.  (Latin  text) 
24  :  32,  where  "Penetrabo  omnes  inferiores  partes  terrae,  et  inspiciam  omnes 
dormientes  et  illuminabo  omnes  sperantes  in  Domino"  has  been  deemed  an 
influence  towards  formulating  the  doctrine. 

2  The  ghost  (utukku)  of  Eabani,  the  man-monster  of  the  Gilgamesh  Epic, 
however,  returns  when  summoned,  and  appears  to  Gilgamesh  for  a  brief 

302 


THE  DESCENSION  TO  HADES  303 

termed — preserved  in  a  Babylonian  poem  probably  based 
upon  Sumerian  materials.  The  goddess  visits  the  abode 
of  the  dead,  the  city  of  Arallu — 

"the  house  of  gloom,  the  dwelling  of  Irkalla, 
the  house  from  which  those  who  enter  depart  not.  .  .  . 
the  house  where  those  who  enter  are  deprived  of  light; 
a  place  where  dust  is  their  nourishment,  clay  their  food ; 
...  in  thick  darkness  they  dwell; 
they  are  clad  like  bats  in  a  garb  of  wings; 
on  door  and  bolt  the  dust  is  laid" — 

in  order  that  she  might  find  Tammuz,  the  husband  of  her 
youth,  and  give  him  to  drink  of  the  waters  of  life  which 
gushed  up  under  the  throne  of  the  spirits  of  the  earth, 
and  so  bring  him  once  more  back  to  the  light  and  life 
of  earth.  This  myth  has  been  commonly  interpreted  as 
a  version  of  the  ubiquitous  story  of  the  mutual  wooing 
of  the  sun-god  and  the  earth-goddess  (or  of  the  latter 
by  the  spirit  of  vegetation)  in  order  that  the  earth  may 
bring  forth  its  fruits  in  the  following  spring. 

In  the  Mandaean  story  of  Hibil  Ziva's1  descent  into 
the  underworld  we  have  the  Babylonian  myth  raised  to 
a  higher  level  ethically  and  spiritually.  He  was  commis- 
sioned by  the  " great  ones"  2  to  go  and  wage  a  successful 
war  with  the  king  of  darkness  (Ahriman),  and  to  liberate 
the  souls  of  the  righteous  detained  there  and  to  restore 
them  to  the  world  of  light.  The  story,  it  will  be  seen, 
has  now  assimilated  some  of  the  elements  of  Persian  dual- 


space.  Notable  men,  or  heroes,  it  was  thought,  could  be  recalled  to  earth 
for  a  little  while  in  order  to  be  consulted  (cf.  I  Sam.  28  :  7-21;  Horn.,  Od., 
II,  488  Jf.).  Hence  some  scholars  derive  Sheol  from  Assyr.,  Sualu  (?  ),  and 
interpret  its  meaning  as  "the  place  where  oracles  may  be  obtained." 

1  A  divine  hero,  son  of  Manda  d'  Hajje  (see  Brandt,  Mandaische  Schrif- 
ten,  pp.  138  ff.  ;  Mand.  Relig.,pp.  182-184;  Gunkel,  Schopfung  und  Chaos, 
pp.  364  and  382. 

2  Are  these  equivalents  of  the  (original)  Hebrew  Elohim  ? 


304    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

ism.  "The  representation  of  the  hero  as  fighting  with 
the  powers  of  darkness,"  says  Doctor  Cheyne  (Bib.  Probs., 
p.  104),  "seems  at  first  sight  to  fill  a  gap  in  the  Biblical 
myth.  The  Christ,  as  one  might  think,  must  have  had  to 
fight  with  these  potentates  before  he  could  quit  the  city 
of  death  as  a  victor."  And  he  thinks  it  very  probable 
that  "the  Jews  had  a  Messiah  story  (now  lost)  which 
agreed  with  the  Mandaean  in  this  respect." 

A  Zoroastrian  "parallel,"  or  at  least  a  story  contain- 
ing a  similar  idea,  which  has  "arisen  out  of  the  same 
need"  (noted  by  Tiele,  Geschichte,  II,  pp.  267  /.)  has  been 
found  in  the  Avesta,  Vendidad  Fargad,  II,  42,  where,  in 
reply  to  the  question,  "Who  propagated  there  the  Mazda- 
yasnian  religion  in  these  enclosures  which  Yima  made?" 
Ahura  Mazda  makes  reply:  "The  bird  Karshipta,  0  Spi- 
tama  Zarathustra !" l 

Ancient  Greek  and  Roman  literature,  moreover,  abound, 
comparatively  speaking,  in  stories  of  legendary  ."descents" 
to  Hades.  For  example,  there  is  the  descent  of  Herakles 
to  bring  up  Cerberus;  that  of  Dionysus  to  bring  back 
his  mother  Semele  and  carry  her  to  heaven;  of  Orpheus 
to  recover  his  beloved  wife;  of  ^Eneas,  the  Trojan  hero, 
to  consult  his  father  Anchises;  of  Hermes,  sent  by  Zeus 
to  find  the  lost  Persephone,  etc.  All  these  have  at  one 
time  or  other  been  suggested  as  possible  "sources"  or 
as,  at  least  in  a  sense,  "parallels"  of  the  idea  of  the 
descent  of  Jesus  to  the  nether  world  of  the  dead. 

But  when  we  come  to  look  closely  into  these  several 
stories  their  insufficiency  is  very  obvious.  In  the  cases 
just  quoted  the  whole  object  of  the  journey  as  well  as 
its  mythical  framework  is  totally  different.  Moreover, 
in  these  stories  the  anthropomorphic  hero  (or  heroine) 
is  generally  represented  as  visiting  Hades  in  his  (her) 
lifetime,  not  after  death.  There  is,  in  short,  no  possible 
comparison  to  be  made. 

1  /.  e.}  Zoroaster. 


THE  DESCENSION  TO  HADES  305 

The  Avestan  parallel,  again,  is  also  unlike  for  similar 
reasons.  It  is  not  the  after-death  visit  of  a  man.  Jesus 
is  thought  to  have  fulfilled  this  part  of  his  mission  dur- 
ing the  "three  days"  immediately  succeeding  his  death. 
It  is  worth  noting  also  that  Zoroaster's  teaching  (Khor- 
dah  Avesta,  XXII)  is  that  the  soul  of  a  deceased  man  re- 
mains near  the  head  of  the  corpse  for  three  days  and 
nights;  after  this  it  goes  to  "its  own  place."  A  similar 
Jewish  rabbinical  belief  held  that  it  stayed  near  the  body 
for  that  period  of  time  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to 
return  to  it;  but  on  the  fourth  day  the  face  became  so 
changed  that  it  realised  the  impossibility  of  reanimation 
(cf.  John  n  :  39  and  The  Rest  of  the  Words  of  Baruch, 
IX,  7-13).  This  belief  would  seem  to  preclude  the  idea 
of  such  a  journey  arising  in  the  early  Christian  mind  from 
Zoroastrian  or  Jewish  sources. 

As  compared  with  the  Mandaean  story,  in  the  case  of 
Jesus  there  is  no  "war"  with  the  powers  of  darkness  or 
evil.  Doctor  Cheyne,  as  we  have  seen,  suggests  that, 
in  the  Jewish  Messianic  cycle  of  ideas  this  part  has  been 
dropped,  and  that  "evidently  the  Christian  instinct  was 
against  it";  and  this  because  "the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters, as  a  rule,  prefer  to  represent  the  battle  between 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  demons  as  having  taken  place  in 
his  earthly  lifetime"  (Matt.  12  :  29;  Luke  10  :  18;  John 
12  :  31;  14  :  30;  16  :  11).  But  these  examples  do  not 
refer  to  "battles"  with  demons.  The  latter  are  invaria- 
bly expelled  with  a  word!  And  in  Rev.  12  :  7-1 1  we  are 
told  that  the  divine  armies  which  overcome  Satan  are 
led  by  the  archangel  Michael.  This,  it  is  true,  has  been 
unsatisfactorily  explained  by  saying  that  Michael  repre- 
sents Jesus  Christ  in  his  relation  to  the  angels !  !  But 
why  should  not  the  simpler  explanation  suffice,  viz.,  that 
in  the  "descent"  of  Jesus  no  battle  at  all,  with  an  al- 

1  In  vs.  11  Michael  and  Jesus  ("the  Lamb")  appear  to  be  regarded  as 
different  persons. 


306    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

most  coequal  power  (as  in  the  view  of  Mazdeism)  was 
thought  of? 

But  we  have  still  to  consider  the  Buddhist  " parallels." 
The  first  of  these  is  recommended  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robert- 
son, who  says  {Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  257):  "The 
motive  of  the  descent  into  hell  [Hades]  may  have  been 
taken  by  the  Christists  from  the  [Chinese]  Buddhists' 
fable  of  Buddha's  expedition  to  preach,  like  all  former 
Buddhas,  to  his  mother1  in  the  upper  world  of  Tawa- 
deintha"  {cf.  Bigandet's  Life  of  Gaudama,  I,  pp.  219- 
225). 

Setting  aside  the  fact  that  this  story  is  not  found  in 
early  Buddhist  scriptures,  and  is  not  improbably  derived 
from  corrupt  Christian  sources,  the  whole  motif  is  dif- 
ferent to  that  in  the  story  of  Jesus,  who  does  not  go  dur- 
ing his  earthly  lifetime  to  the  "upper  world"  to  preach 
either  to  his  mother  or  to  the  gods,  as  another  version 
puts  it,  but,  it  is  said,  to  proclaim  his  message  to  "the 
spirits  in  ward,  who  formerly  disobeyed,  when  the  long- 
suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noe" — that  is, 
perhaps,  in  other  words,  to  the  generations  preceding  his 
advent  into  the  world. 

Another  Buddhist  story,  regarded  apparently  as  in 
some  sense  a  "parallel"  by  Doctor  Van  den  Bergh  Van 
Eysinga  (Einfliisse,  pp.  87  /.),  is  the  one  referred  to  by 
the  late  Professor  Cowell  as  "The  Northern  Buddhist 
Legend  of  Avalokiteswara's  Descent  into  the  Hell  Avichi" 
(Jour,  of  Philology,  vol.  VI,  1876,  pp.  222  jf.).  He  says: 
"The  name  and  attributes  of  Avalokiteswara2  are  entirely 

1  In  the  Tibetan  version  the  preaching  is  to  the  gods.  There  is  an  allu- 
sion to  a  visit  to  hell  of  the  Buddha  in  the  Lalita  vistdra,  2  Gatha,  8,  trad, 
pour  Foucaux,  I,  14;  cf.  Lefmann,  Lalita  vistdra,  I  (1874),  p.  98,  which  is 
declared  by  Seydel  (Evangelium,  etc.,  183,  267/.,  and  Buddha- Legende,  p. 
35)  to  be  a  "parallel."  But  there  is  no  mention  in  it  of  preaching  or  of  re- 
leasing captives. 

2  In  northern  India  he  was  regarded  as  a  Bodhisattva  (potential  Buddha) ; 
but  in  China  he  is  worshipped,  under  a  female  form,  as  the  Buddha's  per- 


THE  DESCENSION  TO  HADES  307 

unknown  to  the  southern  Buddhists  and  his  worship  is 
one  of  the  later  additions  which  have  attached  themselves 
to  the  simpler  original  system.  .  .  .  The  two  best-known 
northern  works  which  contain  details  respecting  Avalo- 
kiteswara  are  the  Karanda-vyuha  and  the  Saddharma- 
Pundarika. 

"The  first  few  chapters  of  the  former  work  are  occu- 
pied with  a  description  of  Avalokiteswara's  descent  into 
the  hell  Avichi  ['no-joy']  to  deliver  the  souls  there  held 
captive  by  Yama  the  lord  of  the  lower  world.  .  .  . 
These  seem  to  me  to  bear  a  curious  resemblance  to  the 
Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  ..." 

He  then  sums  up  the  question  of  priority  thus:  "Is  the 
resemblance  of  the  two  legends  accidental,  or  is  it  possi- 
ble that  in  the  Buddhist  account  we  have  one  of  those 
faint  reflections  of  Christian  influence  (derived,  perhaps, 
from  Persian  Christians  settled  in  western  and  southern 
India)  which  Professor  Weber  has  endeavoured  to  trace 
in  the  doctrine  of  faith  as  taught  in  the  Bhagavad  Gita 
and  some  of  the  mediaeval  schools  of  the  Vedanta  ?  Much 
must  depend  on  the  date  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus.  Maury  and  Cooper  would  place  it  as  low  as 
the  fifth  century;  but  Tischendorf  with  greater  prob- 
ability would  refer  it  to  the  second.1  Even  if  the  present 
form  in  which  we  have  the  legend  is  interpolated,  much 
of  it  must  surely  be  of  an  early  date;  and  we  find  direct 
allusions  to  events  described  there  in  the  pseudo-Epi- 
phanius  homily  'in  Sepulchrum  Christi '  and  in  the  fif- 
teenth sermon  of  Eusebius  of  Alexandria. 

"At  the  same  time  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  Buddhist  legend  was  connected  with  the  earliest  wor- 
ship of  Avalokiteswara.    It  is  not  alluded  to  by  Chinese 

sonified  power  (see  S.  Beal,  A  Catena  of  Buddhist  Scriptures  from  the  Chinese, 
pp.  282,  note  2;  383-409). 

1  In  more  recent  times  Doctors  Harnack  and  Van  Manen  have  regarded 
it  as  "not  earlier  than  the  fourth  century";  but  Doctor  Rendel  Harris  has 
lately  supported  the  view  of  the  early  date. 


308  MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

travellers  in  India;  and  the  date  of  the  Karanda-vyuha 
can  only  be  so  far  fixed  that  it  seems  to  have  been  trans- 
lated into  Tibetan  in  the  ninth  century." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  we  think,  that  the  idea  con- 
tained in  this  story — whatever  its  historical  value  may 
be — was  not  borrowed  by  the  early  Christians  from  any 
of  the  above-mentioned  sources.  Jesus,  as  man,  would 
be  universally  expected  to  descend  at  death  to  the  world 
of  the  dead;  it  would  also  be  natural  to  suppose  that  his 
mission  to  mankind  would  be  extended  to  that  state  of 
being  also.  The  phraseology  in  which  these  concepts  are 
expressed  is  no  doubt  largely  symbolical;  but  we  are,  at 
least  in  the  canonical  books,  spared  the  lurid  sensational- 
ism which  marks  the  account  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus. 

The  Three  Days 

On  the  subject  of  the  traditional  interval  between  the 
death  and  the  resurrection,  Professor  Drews  comments 
as  follows  {The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  pp. 
164  and  165):  " Whether,  e.g.,  the  traditional  'after 
three  days'  in  the  account  of  the  resurrection  has  been 
chosen  on  astral  grounds,  and  is  related  to  the  three 
winter  months  from  the  shortest  day  when  the  sun  dies 
to  the  vernal  equinox  when  it  triumphs  definitely  over 
the  winter  and  so  the  months  are  condensed  into  three 
days  in  the  myth,  or  whether  the  moon  has  furnished  the 
data  for  the  three  days  and  three  nights,  as  it  is  invisible 
for  that  period,  and,  as  so  often  happens  in  myths,  the 
moon  and  the  sun  have  been  blended,  we  need  not  con- 
sider here.  Possibly  the  number  may  be  explained  by 
the  popular  belief  in  Persia  and  Judaea  that  the  soul  re- 
mains three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  body,  only  departing  to  its  place  on  the  fourth 
morning.  Possibly,  again,  the  number  was  determined 
by  Hosea  6:2,  where  we  read:  After  two  days  he  will 
revive  us.    In  any  case,  where  there  are  so  many  possible 


THE  THREE  DAYS  309 

explanations,  we  have  no  convincing  reasons  to  regard  the 
account  in  the  Gospels  as  historical."  ' 

In  discoursing  on  this  matter  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Caesarea  Philippi,  Jesus  is  variously  reported  to  have 
said  that  "after  three  days"  he  would  rise  again  (Mark 
8  :  31);  be  raised  again  "the  third  day"  (Matt.  16  :  21); 
and  be  raised  "the  third  day"  (Luke  9  :  22).  To  these 
statements  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul  who 
affirms  (I  Cor.  15:4)  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day.2 

Now,  the  statement  in  Mark  (which  may  be  taken  as 
the  original  version,  of  which  the  other  two  are  variants) 
"after  three  days"  is  really  quite  satisfied  by  the  narra- 
tives themselves.  These  all  imply  that  the  body  lay  in 
the  tomb  about  thirty-six  hours,  distributed  over  three  suc- 
cessive days,  which  corresponds  to  the  Hebraic  expres- 
sion "on  the  third  day"  of  II  Kings  20  :  5,  and  Hosea 
6:2;  but  not  to  the  statement  in  Jonah  1  :  17,  where  the 
analogy  is  at  best  only  very  approximate.  This,  again, 
is  corroborated  by  the  form  used  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
and  by  St.  Paul. 

Turning  next  to  Professor  Drews's  attempt  to  show  that 
this  statement  is  "unhistorical,"  we  have  first  the  sug- 
gestion that  what  is  really  in  the  writer's  mind  is,  per- 
haps, "the  three  months  from  the  shortest  day,  when 
the  sun  dies,  to  the  vernal  equinox,  when  it  triumphs 

1  On  p.  77  {op.  cit.)  Doctor  Drews  refers  also  to  Isaiah  53  and  Jonah  2  :  1, 
and  adds:  "The  story  of  Jonah  itself  seems  to  have  been  originally  only  an 
historical  embodiment  of  the  myth  of  the  dead,  buried,  and  risen  Saviour; 
in  fact,  Jesus  refers  to  the  prophet  in  this  sense  (Matt.  12  :  40)." 

In  the  next  verse,  however,  Jesus  says:  "A  greater  than  Jonas  is  here !" 
This  remark  does  not  harmonise  with  any  view  that  both  were  mere  histori- 
cal embodiments  of  the  myth  of  the  dead,  buried,  and  risen  Saviour.  There 
is  comparison  of  missions  but  no  identity  of  persons. 

2  In  the  Jewish  mode  of  computing  time  any  portion  of  a  day  was  popu- 
larly and  loosely  spoken  of  as  the  whole.  And  the  portion  of  time  beyond 
a  whole  day  was  referred  to  as  "a  third  day"  (cf.  Gen.  n  :  13;  I  Sam. 
30  :  12;  and  II  Chron.  10  :  5).  John  says  (2  :  19  and  21)  4v  rpialv  rj/xtpais, 
"within  three  days,"  which  is  less  Hebraic. 


310    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

definitely  over  the  winter,1  and  so" — he  continues — "the 
three  months  are  condensed  into  three  days."  But  what 
authority  has  he  for  asserting  that  a  definite  statement 
like  this,  repeated  over  and  over  again,  may  mean  three 
months  ?  This  is  a  monstrous  and  unwarrantable  as- 
sumption. 

No  doubt,  for  the  conveniences  of  the  solar-mythical 
theory  the  literal  three  days  is  quite  impossible;  hence 
when  a  szm-myth  proves  intractable  he  naturally  turns 
to  the  moon,  where  there  is  a  monthly  full  three  days' 
obscuration,  and  consoles  himself  with  the  reflection  that 
in  myths  the  sun  and  moon  have  been  often  blended ! 2 
But  the  moon  has  never  been  concerned  in  this  matter, 
and  its  introduction  here  is  plainly  a  makeshift,  as  is 
shown  directly  afterwards  by  the  fact  that  the  Persian 
and  Jewish  beliefs  about  the  soul — though  these  state 


1  On  p.  95  of  The  Christ  Myth,  he  admits,  "it  is  obvious,  however,  that  the 
sun  can  only  be  regarded  from  such  a  tragic  standpoint  in  a  land  where,  and 
in  the  myths  of  a  people  for  whom,  it  possesses  in  reality  such  a  decisive  sig- 
nificance that  there  are  grounds  for  lamenting  its  absence  or  lack  of  strength 
during  winter  and  for  an  anxious  expectation  of  its  return  and  revival  "  (see 
Lobeck,  Aglaophamus,  p.  691,  where  the  whole  theory  is  disputed).  From 
this  dilemma  Doctor  Drews  tries  to  escape  by  postulating  (1)  that  the  people 
originally  came  from  a  more  severe  climate,  and  (2)  that  the  solar  festivals 
at  the  solstice  became  (later)  conjoined  with  vegetative  festivals  at  the  equi- 
nox. "Usually,"  he  adds,  ..."  death  and  reappearance  were  joined  in  one 
single  feast,  and  this  was  celebrated  at  the  time  in  spring  when  day  and 
night  were  of  equal  length,  when  vegetation  was  at  its  highest,  and  in  the 
East  the  harvest  was  begun."  Dupuis  argues  in  a  similar  manner  {Vorigine 
de  tous  les  cultes,  p.  152).  The  cult  of  Dionysus-Zagreus  at  least  affords  a 
striking  exception  to  this  alleged  rule.  Under  the  form  of  a  bull  he  was  torn 
to  pieces  and  eaten  raw  by  women  in  the  winter  time,  and  further  rites,  repre- 
senting his  revival,  took  place  in  the  spring  ! 

2  In  true  Semitic  mythology  (unlike  Aryan)  the  moon,  it  is  true,  is  a  male 
divinity,  and  in  some  cases  it  is  regarded  as  a  different  aspect  (?  nightly 
representative)  of  the  chief,  or  solar,  god.  Also  there  is  some  relation  be- 
tween the  moon-god  and  Tammuz,  as  there  is  also  between  the  sun  and 
Tammuz,  who,  like  most  of  these  vegetation  spirits,  developed  solar  and 
lunar  characteristics.  This  fact  is  shown  inter  alia  by  the  Osiris  variant 
of  the  "Dying  God"  cult.  But  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  for  the 
syncretism  and  confusion  postulated  by  Doctor  Drews. 


THE  EMPTY  TOMB  311 

the  exact  contrary — are  drawn  upon  as  another  possible 
source  of  the  idea;  and  a  yet  further  source  is  next  found 
in  Hosea  6:2,  where  " after  two  days"  has  certainly  no 
reference  to  the  experience  of  Jesus,1  though  both  the  late 
Doctor  Pusey  and  many  of  the  fathers  have  professed 
to  find  a  mystical  reference  here. 

But  the  whole  solar-mythical  theory  here  really  breaks 
down  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  sun  is  never  out  of  sight 
for  three  months,  or  even  three  days,  except  in  very  high 
latitudes,  and  in  the  case  of  the  moon  its  monthly  three 
days  of  obscuration  are  not  comparable  with  the  thirty- 
six  hours*  sojourn  in  the  tomb,  because  the  latter  is  ex- 
actly only  one-half  of  three  days !  Hence  the  analogy 
drawn  fails  to  satisfy  the  conditions,  as  also  does  that 
relating  to  the  full  three  days'  sojourn  of  the  soul  beside 
the  corpse. 

The  Empty  Tomb 

Much  discussion  has  also  taken  place  upon  the  subject 
of  the  empty  tomb.  St.  Paul,  it  is  urged,  in  his  (the 
earliest)  account  of  the  resurrection,  says  nothing  about 
it,  and  the  Gospel  accounts  are  discrepant.2  But  St. 
Paul  asserts  that  Jesus  rose  again  "on  the  third  day," 
after  being  buried,  which  is  another  way  of  stating  the 
same  thing !  And  had  his  appearances  been  of  an  hal- 
lucinatory character,  as  Professor  Schmiedel  argues  in 
the  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  and  been  regarded  as  appari- 
tional  by  St.  Paul  himself,  the  latter  would  not  have  re- 
ferred at  all  to  any  "rising"  on  the  third  day,  because 
a  mere  phantasmal  appearance  may  be  seen  any  day  after 
death,  whether  the  body  is  or  is  not  lying  in  the  grave. 

1  Because  in  the  Mass.  version  of  the  text  the  reference  is  to  "us."  So 
also  the  LXX  version  reads  ii-avao-Trjadneda.  There  is,  it  is  true,  another 
possible  pointing  of  the  Hebrew,  but  it  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  con- 
text as  the  above  rendering. 

2  The  present  writer  has  discussed  these  objections  in  his  The  Resurrec- 
tion Narratives  and  Modern  Criticism,  chap.  8. 


312    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

M.  Salomon  Reinach,  on  the  other  hand,  revives  an  old 
and  non-mythical  objection  when  he  asserts,  with  Strauss 
and  Volkmar,  that  Jesus  never  had  a  tomb  at  all.  He 
remarks  {Orpheus,  p.  255):  "The  discovery  of  the  empty 
tomb  is  the  less  credible  in  that  Jesus,  if  he  had  been  exe- 
cuted, would  have  been  thrown  by  the  Roman  soldiers 
into  the  common  grave  of  malefactors."  It  is  to  be  feared 
that  the  learned  French  scholar  penned  this  passage 
hastily  and  without  having  previously  consulted  his  au- 
thorities !  In  earlier  times  it  was  usual  for  bodies  to  be 
left  to  decay  upon  the  cross;  but,  according  to  Quintil- 
ian  (Declam.y  VI),  after  the  time  of  Augustus,  the  bodies, 
if  claimed,  were  given  up  to  the  friends  for  burial.1 

The  First  Day  of  the  Week 

The  vox  universa  of  Christian  tradition  has  in  all 
ages  asserted  definitely  and  clearly  that  the  first  day  of 
the  week  was  held  to  be  a  sacred  day,  in  place  of  the 
seventh,  in  commemoration  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
from  the  dead.  This  tradition  has  of  late  years,  how- 
ever, been  disputed.  Doctor  Paul  Carus  says  (The  Mon- 
ist,  1906,  p.  420):  "Sunday  was  then  [temp.  Chr.]  the 
great  festive  day  of  the  Mithraists,  and  the  disciples  of 
St.  John  [Baptist]  as  well  as  the  Nazarenes  celebrated 
the  day  by  coming  together  and  breaking  bread  in  a 
common  meal.  .  .  .  That  Sunday  was  celebrated  prior 
to  Christianity  is  unquestionably  proved  by  the  fact  that 
St.  Paul  visits  in  several  cities  those  circles  of  disciples 
who  had  neither  heard  of  the  Holy  Ghost  nor  believed 
as  yet  on  Christ  Jesus,  and  they  used  to  break  bread  in 
common  on  the  first  day  of  the  week." 

Doctor  Carus  here  does  not  state  the  facts  quite  fairly. 
Acts  19  :  1-5  certainly  affirms  that  St.  Paul,  when  at 

1  The  Jews,  too,  were  careful  that  they  should  be  buried  before  sunset 
(wpb  dvvros  rjXiov,  Josephus). 


THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  313 

Ephesus,  visited  a  community  of  the  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist,  who  had  not  heard  of  the  Holy  Ghost  or  re- 
ceived apostolic  baptism. 

But  the  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  breaking  of  bread 
by  them  on  any  day.  The  Nazarenes,  too,  seem  to  have 
been  the  more  Jewishly  minded  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
though  the  term  was  also  probably  often  loosely  used 
for  all  in  the  apostolic  fellowship.  They  would,  there- 
fore, naturally  follow  the  same  rule,  and  possibly  ob- 
served both  days  in  some  degree. 

As  to  the  Mithraists,  it  is  true  that  in  the  later  period 
of  their  history  at  least  they  observed  Sunday,  and  that 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries  A.  D.  their  doctrines 
and  practises  bore,  in  some  respects,  a  remarkable  re- 
semblance to  those  of  the  Christian  church.  But,  owing 
to  the  loss  of  all  early  Mithraic  literature,  it  is  by  no 
means  certain,  or  probable,  that  this  was  the  case  in  pre- 
Christian  times.  Some  of  the  second-century  Christian 
writers,  indeed,  accuse  the  Mithraists  of  travestying  both 
the  sacraments  and  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  But, 
whether  this  be  the  case  or  not,  it  is  both  wiser  and  safer 
to  say,  with  M.  Franz  Cumont  {The  Mysteries  of  M Ultra, 
1910,  p.  194):  "We  cannot  presume  to  unravel  to-day  a 
question  which  divided  contemporaries  and  which  will 
doubtless  forever  remain  insoluble.  We  are  too  imper- 
fectly acquainted  with  the  dogmas  and  liturgies  of  Ro- 
man Mazdeism,  as  well  as  the  development  of  primitive 
Christianity,  to  say  definitely  what  mutual  influences 
were  operative  in  their  simultaneous  evolution."  This 
pronouncement  in  effect  amounts  to  a  verdict  of  "not 
proven"  as  against  the  case  presented  by  Doctor  Carus, 
who  would  suggest  a  borrowing  of  the  observance  of  the 
first  day  from  the  Mithraists.  We  do  not  know  defi- 
nitely whether  the  pre-Christian  Mithraists  observed  the 
first  day  of  the  week;  but  we  do  know  that  the  very  earli- 
est Christians  firmly  believed  that  Jesus  rose  again  on 


314    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

that  day,  and  honoured  it  in  consequence  instead  of  the 
older  Jewish  Sabbath,  which  it  henceforward  superseded 
in  the  church.1 

The  Angelophanies  at  the  Tomb 

We  have  already  seen  (chap,  n,  pp.  218  f)  how  Pro- 
fessor W.  B.  Smith  has  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
" young  man"  (veavio-icos;)  of  Mark  15:5  was  nothing  else 
than  the  fravishi  (frohar),  or  "heavenly  self,"  of  Jesus. 
That  particular  phenomenon,  however,  we  submit,  stands 
on  precisely  the  same  footing  as  the  similar  figures  seen 
at  the  tomb  and  recorded  by  the  other  synoptists  and 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

These  "  angelophanies,"  commonly  set  aside  without 
examination  by  " liberal"  critics,  have  been  briefly  no- 
ticed by  Fiebig  (Babel.,  p.  7)  in  the  following  terms:  "In 
the  reports  of  the  resurrection  the  angelophanies  are  un- 
doubtedly mythical  in  character." 

But  why  should  this  conclusion  be  thus  dogmatically 
stated?  There  are  other  possibilities,  e.  g.,  visions  of  an 
hallucinatory  character.  The  women  may  have  fancied 
that  they  saw  these  apparitions !  Again,  there  is  at  least 
the  possibility  that  these  appearances  had  some  objec- 
tive basis.  It  is  true  that  (granting  this  possibility)  the 
dividing  line  in  such  matters  between  what  is  wholly  sub- 
jective and  hallucinatory  and  what  is  (spiritually)  ob- 
jective and,  therefore,  veridical  is  one  which  is  extremely 
difficult  to  draw.  But  a  careful  study  of  the  latest  mod- 
ern literature  bearing  upon  this  branch  of  psychical  re- 
search will  at  least  prevent  any  thinking  person  from 
hastily  forming  the  opinion  that  because  a  phenomenon 
of  the  class  known  as  "supernatural"  is  reported  as  oc- 
curring many  years  ago,  therefore  it  must  certainly  be 
mythical.     It  is  really  to  a  very  large  extent  a  question 

1  Gunkel  thinks  (Verstandnis,  pp.  73  f.)  that  Sunday  was  already  observed 
by  the  Jews  also;  but  he  offers  no  proof. 


OSIRIS  315 

of  the  intelligence  and  veracity  of  the  witnesses,  and  per- 
haps one  of  the  best  proofs  of  the  objectivity  of  the  phe- 
nomenon is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  all  the  witnesses 
in  question  relate  very  similar  experiences.1 

Certain  Mythical  "Resurrections" 

We  will  now  proceed  to  state  and  deal  with  certain 
alleged  parallels  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  found 
among  the  chief  dying  and  rising  saviours  of  the  ethnic 
nature-cults. 

Osiris 

In  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  cult-god  Osiris  (Bab.,  ASari, 
a  form  of  Marduk),  whose  body  was  hacked  to  pieces,  the 
myth  relates,  by  his  brother  and  adversary  Set,  the  idea 
of  resurrection,  in  the  Christian  sense,  is  but  imperfectly 
expressed  and  even  that  of  identity  is  somewhat  vague. 
In  the  developed  form  of  the  Osirian  religion  Osiris  be- 
comes identified  with  the  sun2  of  to-day  (this  year)  which 
rises  to-morrow  (next  year)  in  the  form  of  his  son  Horus. 
Osiris  himself  is  regarded  as  remaining  below  as  king  of 
the  underworld  and  judge  of  the  dead.  The  idea  of  res- 
urrection, or  rather  revival,  was  certainly  moralised  and 
spiritualised  as  it  never  was  in  Babylon  or  elsewhere; 
but  the  whole  concept,  even  in  Egypt,  was  originally  ex- 
pressed in  a  mere  materialistic  form,  as  is  shown  by  the 
primitive  story  told  of  the  membra  disjecta  of  his  body, 
which  Anubis  pieced  together,  and  Isis,  assisted  by  the 
snake-goddess   Heptet   and  other   gods   and  goddesses, 

1  It  is  not,  however,  an  absolute  test;  for  collective  hallucinations  do  oc- 
cur under  certain  conditions.  The  present  writer  has  discussed  fully  the 
phenomena,  etc.,  at  the  tomb  in  his  The  Resurrection  Narratives  and  Modern 
Criticism  (1910). 

2  The  Book  of  the  Dead  (Budge's  translation),  vol.  I,  pp.  87  and  88.  But, 
doubtless,  in  earlier  times  he  was  a  vegetation  spirit  and  a  god  of  fecundity. 
Later,  however,  he  became  identified,  or  confused,  in  some  degree  with  Ra 
as  Osiris-RS. 


316     MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

fanned  into  life  again  with  her  wings,1  while,  according  to 
one  account,  Horus  by  means  of  various  magical  ceremo- 
nies made  him  to  "stand  up "  again.  Such  is  the  Egyptian 
resurrection  (see  Budge,  Osiris  and  the  Egyptian  Resur- 
rection, vol.  I,  pp.  72,  74,  and  75) !  These  stories  point 
merely  to  the  old  material  life  of  nature  which  is  simply 
revived;  hence  the  practise  of  mummification,  without 
which  there  can  be  no  revivification  either  for  Osiris  or 
the  Osirian. 

Adonis 

A  two  days'  festival  in  honour  of  the  death  and  revival 
of  Adonis  (the  Syrian  Tammuz2)  was  celebrated  early  in 
February  by  the  Phoenician  women  of  Byblus.  The  first 
day  was  spent  in  grief  and  lamentation,  the  second  in 
joy  and  triumph.  In  Greece,  whither  the  rites  were  sub- 
sequently transferred,  the  festival  took  place  in  summer 
and  was  prolonged  to  eight  days. 

According  to  the  anthropomorphic  setting  of  the  myth 
Adonis  was  slain  by  the  tusk  of  a  wild  boar,  whilst  hunt- 
ing in  the  mountains  of  Lebanon,  and  was  revived  annu- 
ally at  his  festival  in  the  spring  or  in  some  places  in  mid- 
summer.3 In  Ovid's  poetical  version  of  the  myth  (Metam., 
X,  735)  his  return  to  life  would  seem  to  be  evidenced  by 

1  An  image  of  Osiris  was  buried  in  a  hollowed-out  pine  trunk,  which  was 
kept  for  a  year  and  then  usually  burned,  as  was  done  with  the  image  of  Attis 
attached  to  the  pine-tree  (see  below,  and  Macrobius,  De  Err.  Prof.  Rel., 
XXVII).  The  myth  should  be  studied  especially  in  Doctor  Budge's  Osiris 
and  the  Egyptian  Resurrection  (see  also  his  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  vol.  II, 
131-138,  and  Frazer's  Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris  (3d  ed.),  vol.  II,  pp.  12  and  13). 
Foucart  thinks  that  the  drama  was  enacted  at  the  Anthesteria,  Mommensen 
places  it  in  the  following  month  at  the  Lesser  Mysteries. 

2  Doctor  Radau  states  (The  Bab.  Exped.  of  the  Univ.  of  Penn. :  Sumerian 
Hymns  and  Prayers  to  the  God  Dumuzi,  or  Bab.  Lent.  Songs,  1913)  that  the 
resurrection  of  Tammuz  is  never  mentioned  in  the  [older]  dialectal  texts  of 
southern  Sumer. 

3  So  Milton  in  his  Paradise  Lost  (book  I) : 

"Thammuz  came  next  behind, 
Whose  wounds  in  Lebanon  allur'd 


ATTIS  317 

the  springing  up  of  the  red  anemone  in  the  place  where 
his  blood  was  spilt.1 

During  the  festival,  as  described  by  the  Greek  poet 
Bion,2  on  the  first  day  an  image3  of  the  young  lover 
lying  on  a  couch  and  dying  in  the  arms  of  Aphrodite4 
(Astarte)  was  exhibited.  Early  on  the  next  day  the  statue 
was  carried  down  to  the  seashore,  where  its  "wounds" 
were  washed  by  women  amid  great  lamentations.  Di- 
rectly afterwards  the  drama  of  his  "resurrection"  was 
enacted.  This  is  described  by  Lucian  (Be  Dea  Syr.,  VI) 
in  a  few  sarcastic  words:  "They  say  mythically  that  he 
is  alive"  (tyetv  re  \xiv  /jLvdoXoyeovai,) . 

Attis 

The  ritual  in  the  cult  of  Attis,5  the  Phrygian  type  of 
the  vegetal  (-solar?)  god,  began  with  the  felling  of  the 

The  Syrian  damsels  to  lament  his  fate 
In  amorous  ditties  all  a  summer's  day." 

But  Adonis  and  Attis,  unlike  most  of  these  cult-gods,  remained  to  the  end 
almost  free  from  solar  characteristics  (see  Frazer,  Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris, 
vol.  I,  p.  232,  note). 

1  Cf.  also  Baudissin,  Adon.  und.  Eshmun,  p.  169. 

2  See  Ahren's  Bucolici  Graci,  sub  Bionis  reliq. 

3  That  this  part  of  the  ceremonies  is  based  on  old  Semitic  ritual,  and  is  not 
a  later  Greek  addition,  is  evidenced  by  Lampridius,  who  says  (Heliogab., 
VII):  Salambonam  (Vj?a  oSs,  "image  of  Ba'al")  etiam  omni  planctu  et  jac- 
tatione  Syriaci  cultus  exhibuit. 

Doctor  Langdon  thinks  that  in  the  case  of  Dumu-zi  (Tammuz)  "a  wooden 
figure  of  the  dying  god  was  probably  placed  in  a  skiff  and  given  over  to  the 
waters  of  the  Euphrates  or  the  Tigris,  precisely  as  in  Egypt  the  image  of 
Osiris  was  cast  upon  the  sea.  When  the  figure  of  the  god  disappeared  be- 
neath the  waves  he  was  supposed  to  pass  to  the  underworld  and  maintain  a 
peaceful  existence  after  the  pain  of  death"  (Tammuz  and  Ishtar,  pp.  11  and 
12).    Dumu-zi  figures  here  as  the  fertilising  spirit  of  the  inundation. 

4  Aphrodite  (like  Istar)  "descends"  to  Hades  to  bring  up  Adonis.  There 
is  no  "descent"  of  Mary  in  the  Christian  tradition! 

6  Attis  =  "Father"  (Frazer).  He  was  variously  said  to  have  bled  to  death 
as  a  consequence  of  self-mutilation  at  the  foot  of  a  pine-tree  and  to  have 
been  killed  (like  Adonis)  by  a  wild  boar.  According  to  Sir  James  Frazer  he 
was  originally  a  tree  spirit.  In  one  passage  Firmicus  Maternus  states  (De 
Err.  Prof.  Relig.,  27)  that  a  ram  was  sacrificed  in  the  worship  of  Attis. 


318    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

sacred  pine-tree  into  which  he  was  said  to  have  been 
changed  at  death.  The  trunk  of  this,  swathed  in  bands, 
like  a  mummy,  with  the  effigy  of  a  young  man  attached 
to  it,  was  taken  to  the  temple  where  the  mourning  broke 
forth.  After  a  period  of  fasting  the  tree  trunk  was  sol- 
emnly buried,  and  those  present  stimulated  their  emo- 
tions by  wild  dances,  during  which,  like  the  priests  of 
Ba'al,  they  gashed  themselves  with  knives  till  the  blood1 
flowed.  On  the  evening  of  the  following  day  they  again 
met  in  the  temple  to  celebrate  the  restoration  of  Attis 
to  life;  the  grave  was  opened,  and  when  a  light  had  been 
produced  the  priest  anointed  the  lips  of  the  worshippers 
with  oil,  and  said:  "Be  of  good  cheer,  initiates,  the  god 
has  been  saved;  thus  for  you  also  there  shall  be  salvation 
from  your  troubles."  2  The  joy  of  the  mystae  was  then 
expressed  in  a  sort  of  carnival. 

Dionysus 

The  grave  of  Dionysus,3  who  was  said  to  have  been 
torn  in  pieces  by  the  Titans,  according  to  one  form  of  the 
myth,  was  at  Thebes.  His  " resurrection"  (revival)  is 
variously  related.  According  to  one  version — probably 
an  earlier  form  (cf.  myth  of  Osiris) — his  mother  pieced 
him  together  and  made  him  young  again  (Diodorus  Sicu- 
lus,  first  century  A.  D.,  Ill,  62);  in  another  form  it  is 
merely  stated  that  he  rose  from  the  dead 4  and  ascended 

1  The  blood,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  both  the  seat  and  the  medium 
of  the  life.  Hence  this  act  was  probably  regarded  as  aiding  the  develop- 
ment of  the  new  life. 

2  dappeire,  fiforai  rod  deov  <Te<ro)<T/j.{i>ovt 
Zarai  y&p  i>p.u>v  t&v  ttov&v  awTijpla. 
— Firmicus  Maternus,  De  Err.  Prof.  Rel.  (Zieg.),  p.  57. 

3  Probably  =  "son  of  Zeus"  (A*<5sand  woj,  a  Thracian  word  for  "son"). 

4  Pomegranates  were  supposed  to  have  sprung  from  the  blood  of  Diony- 
sus, as  anemones  from  the  blood  of  Adonis  and  violets  from  that  of  Attis. 
This  points  to  the  conclusion  that  both  Dionysus  and  the  other  forms  of  this 
annually  dying  god  were  originally  "Spirits  of  the  Corn  and  of  the  Wild" 
(Frazer)  and  unconnected  with  the  sun.  The  oldest  (and  aniconic)  repre- 
sentation of  Dionysus  was  a  consecrated  post  formed  from  a  holy  tree. 


MITHRA  319 

to  heaven  (Macrobius,  fifth  century,  Comtn.  in  Somn. 
Scip.,  I,  12,  12;  cf.  Origen,  Cont.  Cels.,  IV,  17);  again, 
it  is  related  that  Zeus  swallowed  the  heart  of  Dionysus 
and  then  begat  him  afresh  by  Semele  (Proclus,  Hymn  to 
Minerva,  see  Lobeck,  Aglaophamus,  p.  51);  finally,  we 
read  that  his  heart  was  pounded  up  and  given  to  Semele, 
who  swallowed  it  and  again  conceived  him  (Hyginus, 
Fabulce,  167). 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  only  variant  of  the  myth 
of  the  (annual)  revival  of  Dionysus  (that  of  Macrobius) 
which  bears  any  resemblance  to  the  story  of  Jesus  is  a 
very  late  one  and  undoubtedly  shows  evidence  of  Chris- 
tian syncretism.  The  other,  and  earlier,  forms  are  ut- 
terly unlike  throughout. 

Mithra 

As  the  Mithra-myth  is  wholly  lost,  it  is  only  possible 
to  study  it  tentatively  by  means  of  the  Mithraic  sculp- 
tures which  are  extant.  One  of  them,  in  which  Mithra 
is  represented  as  struggling  with  a  bull  and  plunging  a 
knife  into  its  neck,  is  commonly  supposed  to  display  the 
god  in  the  role  of  a  "suffering  saviour."  So  far  as  the 
sculpture  goes,  however,  it  would  seem  that  it  is  rather 
the  bull  which  is  suffering.  Indeed,  the  whole  meaning 
of  this  symbolic  representation  is  doubtful.  Doctor  St. 
Clair  Tisdall  suggests  {Mythic  Christs  and  the  True,  pp. 
19  and  20)  that  as  the  Avestic  word  gaus,  besides  mean- 
ing "bull"  is  translatable  "earth,"  and  since  the  word 
urvan  ("soul")  is  probably  a  derivative  of  the  same  root 
as  urvard  ("plant,"  "tree"),  this  sculpture  really  means 
that  the  sun  by  piercing  the  earth  with  its  rays  (the 
knife)  causes  the  vegetation  to  spring  up.1 

1  Professor  Drews,  however,  explains  it  differently.  He  says  (The  Christ 
Myth,  p.  142)  that  before  800  B.  C.  the  sun,  in  the  shape  of  the  constellation 
of  the  Bull,  opened  the  spring  equinox  and  released  the  world  from  the  power 
of  winter.  But  why  the  stabbing  of  the  bull?  Mr.  H.  Stuart  Jones  holds 
(The  Quart.  Rev.,  July,  1914,  p.  119)  that  we  have  here  one  of  those  legends 


320    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Another  sculpture  shows  Mithra  issuing  from  the  rock. 
This  has  been  hastily  pronounced  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robert- 
son {Christianity  and  Mythology,  p.  417)  to  represent  the 
resurrection  of  Mithra  from  the  tomb.  But  there  is  no 
extant  tradition  of  Mithra's  burial  in  a  tomb  or  of  his 
issuing  from  one  after  death.1  Doctor  St.  Clair  Tisdall 
thinks  that  since  the  Avestic  word  asman  (Ved.  Sansc, 
asrnan)  means,  besides  "rock,"  "cloud"  and  "sky,"  the 
reference  here  is  to  Mithra  (i.  e.y  the  sun)  as  a  child  of 
the  sky.  In  both  of  the  above  cases  dogmatism  is  impos- 
sible, but  the  explanations  suggested  by  Doctor  Tisdall 
may  at  least  be  pronounced  very  feasible. 

The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 

It  must  suffice  here  to  point  out  that  the  two  main 
differences  between  the  Christian  resurrection  and  the 
mythical  revivals  (incorrectly  termed  "resurrections") 
of  the  cult-gods  are:  (1)  In  the  case  of  the  nature-cults 
the  revival  of  the  god  is  merely  to  a  fresh  lease  of  the  for- 
mer type  of  life  and  reproductive  energy  in  nature.  In 
the  Christian  resurrection  (as  taught  by  St.  Paul  in  I  Cor. 
15)  both  Jesus  himself  and  Christian  people  rise  to  a 
new  and  wholly  different  life,  in  which  a  "spiritual  body'1 
(acjfia  TTvevfiaTifeov)  replaces  the  former  material  or  "nat- 
ural (psychical)  body"  (a-cbfia  i/ru%t/coV) .2    (2)  The  death 

invented  in  order  to  explain  primitive  ritual — in  this  case  the  sacrifice  of  a 
bull  (embodying  the  corn  spirit) — in  order  to  promote  the  fertility  of  the 
earth. 

Justin  Martyr  says  (Dial.  c.  Try.,  LXX):  "Those  who  record  the  mys- 
teries of  Mithra  say  that  he  was  begotten  of  a  rock  (e*  irirpas  yeyevrjcrdac 
avrdv)."  These  mysteries  were,  as  a  rule,  celebrated  at  the  spring  equinox 
(Cumont,  Monuments  figures  relatifs  aux  mysteres  de  Mithra,  vol.  I,  p.  326). 
For  a  description  of  a  Mithraeum  near  Rome,  in  which  they  were  held, 
see  the  London  Athenceum  for  October  30  and  November  6,  1886. 

2  For  a  discussion  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  on  the  resurrection  and  the  spir- 
itual and  natural  bodies,  see  The  Resurrection  Narratives  and  Modern  Criti- 
cism (1910),  especially  chaps.  10  and  n. 


THE  EPIDAURIA  321 

and  revival  of  the  cult-god  is  an  annual  matter:  Jesus 
and  the  Christian  die  and  are  raised  from  the  dead  "once 
for  all." 

The  Epidauria 

But  a  " source"  of  the  idea  has  also  been  found  in  the 
Eleusinian  mysteries.  In  Mr.  Slade  Butler's  article,  al- 
ready quoted,  we  find  the  following  passage  (p.  498): 
"The  last  act  of  the  sacred  drama  performed  within  the 
temple  of  Demeter  took  place  on  the  eighth  day,  which 
appears  to  have  been  called  Epidauria,  in  honour  of 
/Esculapius  (Asklepios),  the  god  of  returning  life.  The 
ceremony  and  ritual  used  on  this  day  are  not  known, 
but  "  doubtless  the  thought  really  lay  in  this,  that  ^Escu- 
lapius  was  supposed  by  his  wondrous  skill  to  have  raised 
Iacchus  from  the  dead"  (Purser).  Iacchus  was  the  son 
of  Persephone,  the  maiden  (Kore),  but  how  his  death 
was  enacted  has  never  been  ascertained;  probably  this 
ceremony  was  performed  when  a  mystes,  or  rather  an 
epoptes,  was  admitted  to  the  highest  grade  of  the  priest- 
hood, on  which  occasion  the  candidate  would  represent 
Iacchus  and  would  symbolically  die  and  be  raised  to  life 
again.  In  any  case  the  ritual  would  be  mystic  and  dra- 
matic, showing  by  type  and  figure  the  passage  through 
death  to  life.  The  eighth  day  of  the  Eleusinian  celebra- 
tion was,  in  fact,  the  festival  of  returning  life  or  resur- 
rection." 

It  is  not  in  any  sense  demonstrated  by  Mr.  Butler  how 
this  mystic  ceremony,  if  it  be  rightly  set  forth  here,  could 
supply  the  idea  of  the  Christian  resurrection,  which  was 
certainly  not  that  of  mere  " returning  life,"  as  we  have 
seen  above.  The  eighth  day  of  the  mysteries,  called  Epi- 
dauria, is  said  to  have  been  added  to  the  original  num- 
ber of  days  during  which  the  mysteries  were  celebrated 
because  ^Esculapius,  arriving  too  late  for  the  ceremonies 
of  the  sixth  day,  asked  for  initiation.    But  the  whole  idea 


322    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

here  also  is  very  different  to  the  Christian  story  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  ^Esculapius  (who  may  be  an  an- 
cient physician,  euhemerised)  does  not  himself  rise  to  re- 
newed life,  but  raises  another  by  his  skill  in  the  healing 
art.  Moreover,  this  takes  place  not  on  the  third  but  on 
the  eighth  day.  "It  is  extremely  difficult,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Clemen,  "to  see  any  connexion  here,"  and  we  are 
compelled  to  indorse  his  judgment. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  add  a  Buddhist  story  which  has 
been  regarded  by  some  irresponsible  writers  as  a  "paral- 
lel" to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  described  by  Doc- 
tor Edkins  (Chinese  Buddhism,  p.  57)  as  follows:  "After 
the  body  of  the  Buddha  had  been  consumed  upon  the 
funeral  pile,  Anuruddha  went  up  to  the  Tusita  heaven 
to  announce  these  events  to  Maya,  the  mother  of  the 
Buddha.  Maya  at  once  came  down,  and  the  coffin  opened 
of  itself.  The  honoured  one  of  the  world  rose  up,  joined 
his  hands,  and  said:  You  have  condescended  to  come 
down  here  from  your  abode  far  away.  Then  he  said  to 
Ananda:  'You  should  know  that  it  is  for  an  example 
to  the  unfilial  of  after  ages  that  I  have  risen  from  my 
coffin  to  address  inquiries  to  my  mother.'  "  l 

Comment  on  the  above  is  really  superfluous,  but,  if 
any  be  needed,  it  is  sufficient  to  add  that  when  death 
came  to  the  Buddha  it  was,  according  to  the  Buddhist 
scriptures  (cf.  Mahdparinibbdna  Suttanla,  IV,  57;  also  III, 
20;  V,  20,  etc.,  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vol.  XI),  "with 
that  utter  passing  away  in  which  nothing  whatever  re- 
mains behind." 2 

1 A  variant  form  of  this  legend  is  given  by  Doctor  Eitel,  Three  Lectures 
on  Buddhism,  p.  13. 

2  The  exact  meaning  of  the  Buddhistic  Nirvana  is  in  dispute.  By  many 
scholars  it  is  interpreted  as  simply  extinction  (so  Rhys  Davids).  Pfungst, 
however,  maintains  ("Che  e  veramente  il  Nirvana  dei  Buddhisti?",  Coe- 
nobium,  May- June,  1907)  that  it  is  a  state  of  being  in  which,  while  Will 
disappears,  Consciousness  remains. 


THE  ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN  323 

The  Ascension  to  Heaven 

We  will  notice  in  the  first  place,  in  connexion  with  this 
event  in  the  story  of  Jesus,  a  statement  made  by  the  well- 
known  and  eminent  critic  and  churchman  Doctor  T.  K. 
Cheyne,  who,  quoting  the  views  of  Doctor  Winckler, 
says  {Bible  Problems,  1904,  pp.  114  and  115):  "The  same 
scholar  is  of  opinion  that  the  forty  days  between  the 
resurrection  and  the  ascension  of  Christ  (Acts  1  :  3)  may 
originally  (i.  e.,  in  a  pre-Christian  myth  out  of  which  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  representations  grew)  have  meant 
the  forty  days  during  which,  as  the  ancients  well  knew, 
the  Pleiades  become  invisible. 

"In  this  case  the  forty  days  of  the  evangelical  tradi- 
tion were  properly  the  interval  between  the  death  and 
the  resurrection  of  Christ;  i.  e.,  from  a  purely  archaeo- 
logical point  of  view,  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension 
were  one  and  the  same  thing.1  In  fact,  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  of  the  solar  heroes  were  naturally  identi- 
cal, and  the  archaeological  theory  here  expounded  is  that 
myths  of  solar  deities  supplied  details  for  the  close  of  the 
story  of  the  Messiah,  which,  according  to  a  highly  satis- 
fying theory,  preceded  the  appearance  of  the  Christ  of 
history." 

And  he  continues  further:  "In  spite  of  a  churchman's 
natural  inclination  to  a  reverential  reticence,  I  am  bound 
to  say  that  the  form  of  the  spiritual  truth  of  Christ's 
resurrection  and  ascension  can  be  explained  by  archaeol- 
ogy. Provisionally  and  tentatively  it  may  be  possible 
to  explain  the  form  in  each  case  as  a  postulate  of  faith; 
but  in  the  light  of  what  has  been  shown  to  be  the  prob- 
able origin  of  the  form  of  the  belief  in  the  descent  we 
cannot  consider  this  explanation  very  plausible.  That 
there  are  mythic  parallels  for  the  statement  (less  empha- 
sised in  our  documents  than  we  might  have  expected)  of 

1  So  Zimmern,  Die  Keilinschriften  u.  d.  Alte  Test.3,  p.  389. 


324    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  ascension  is  beyond  question.  Not  to  dwell  on  the 
myths  of  Adonis  and  Herakles,  the  Babylonian  solar  dei- 
ties who  descend  (arddu)  necessarily  ascend  (elu)  after- 
wards." l 

The  traditional  period  of  the  invisibility  of  the  Pleiades 
is,  as  above  stated,  forty  days  (cf.  Hesiod,  Works  and 
Days,  II,  383-386).  At  the  present  time,  in  latitude  310, 
they  set,  heliacally,  about  May  2  and  rise,  heliacally, 
about  June  6,  thus  giving  an  interval  of  approximately 
five  weeks. 

In  A.  D.  29  the  Pleiades  were  invisible  for  almost  ex- 
actly forty  days,  which,  so  far,  would  support  the  sugges- 
tion of  Winckler.  But  the  real  question  here  does  not 
depend  upon  any  mere  coincidence  of  this  kind.  The 
point  is,  what  have  the  Pleiades  to  do  with  the  matter  at 
all?  Have  the  Jews,  for  example,  or  any  other  people, 
ever  regarded  this  group  of  stars  as  the  "astral  represent- 
ative" of  the  sun  or  connected  them  in  any  way  with  a 
cult  of  this  kind  ?    No  proof  of  this  has  ever  been  brought 

1  The  rest  of  the  paragraph  deals  with  the  mythic  ascensions  which  are  not 
preceded  by  descensions,  e.  g., those  of  Mithra,the  Babylonian  Etana,  Enoch, 
Elijah,  etc.  Doctor  Langdon  admits  (Tammuz  and  Ishtar,  p.  33)  that 
"The  ascension  of  the  dying  god  into  the  far-away  upper  regions,  where  he 
vanished  forever  from  mortal  eyes,  does  not  form  any  part  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  official  liturgies.  These  adhered  from  first  to  last  to  the  traditional  view 
that  the  divine  son  descended  into  Shedl,  whither  his  mother  and  the  demons 
followed  him  and  whence  they  fetched  him  back  to  the  upper  world  [earth]." 

Doctor  Budge  (Osiris  and  the  Egyptian  Resurrection,  vol.  I,  pp.  75  f.)  thus 
describes  the  ascension  of  Osiris:  "When  the  body  of  Osiris  was  ready  to 
leave  this  earth  for  heaven,  some  difficulty,  it  seems,  arose  in  raising  him 
up  to  the  sky  and  a  ladder  was  found  to  be  necessary.  From  the  text  of 
Pepi  II  (II,  975  f.)  we  learn  the  tradition  that  the  wooden  sides  of  the  lad- 
der were  shaped  by  an  adze  wielded  by  the  god  Sasha,  that  the  rungs  were 
made  of  the  strong  sinews  of  Kasut,  the  bull  of  the  sky,  and  that  they  were 
fashioned  in  their  places  on  the  sides  of  the  ladder  with  the  knotted  thongs 
made  from  the  hide  of  the  god  Utes,  the  son  of  Hesat  (Pepi  II,  II,  975  and 
976).  This  divine  ladder  was  set  up  from  earth  to  heaven  by  Horus  and  Ra, 
according  to  one  legend,  and,  according  to  another,  by  Horus  and  Set.  The 
text  of  Unas  says :  Ra  setteth  up  the  ladder  before  Osiris  in  his  going  to  his 
spirit.     One  of  them  [standeth]  on  this  side  and  one  of  them  on  that  side." 

The  concepts  which  are  set  forth  above  are  very  materialistic  and  crude. 


THE  ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN  325 

forward  in  support  of  this  theory.  Ordinarily,  in  clas- 
sical mythology,  the  Pleiades  were  regarded  as  the  seven 
daughters  of  Atlas,  and  their  rising  and  setting  merely 
marked  the  opening  and  closing  of  the  sailing  season. 
What  particular  constellation  even  the  Hebrews  iden- 
tified with  the  Pleiades  is  uncertain  (Enc.  Bib.,  art. 
" Stars").  In  short,  this  group  of  stars  seems  to  have  no 
connexion  whatever  with  the  sun,  or  with  the  cults  of 
" dying"  and  "rising"  solar  or  other  heroes,  and  the 
borrowing  from  them  of  the  forty  days'  interval  before 
the  ascension  has  not  even  a  shadow  of  probability. 

But  Doctor  Cheyne  admits  that  in  these  ethnic  myths 
the  resurrection  and  the  ascension  are  invariably  one 
and  the  same  event.  If  so,  why  were  they  not  in  the 
Christ-myth,  if  that  story  were  merely  another  instance 
of  a  solar-myth  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  Christian  tradi- 
tion they  have  never  been  regarded  as  practically  syn- 
chronous, which  fact  alone  constitutes  a  strong  argument 
for  rejecting  any  solar  or  astral  origin  of  the  resurrection 
and  ascension1  narratives.  Furthermore,  a  comparison 
with  the  story  of  the  ascension  of  Adonis,  the  Syrian  god 
of  vegetation,  yields  results  which  are  very  instructive 
and,  no  doubt,  fairly  typical.  Lucian,  who  has  preserved 
the  story,  tells  us  that  his  assembled  worshippers,  after 
theatrically  pronouncing  him  to  be  alive,  "send  him  into 
the  air"  (iuv  .  .  .  e?  tov  r)epa  irefiTTovaC),  probably  by  ut- 
tering some  magic  formula.2  In  other  words,  he  intimates 
plainly  that  the  whole  scene  was  a  mere  make-believe 
and  was  not  looked  upon  by  any  one,  even  those  most 

1  Strenuous  efforts  have  been  made  by  some  critics  to  show  that  the  ascen- 
sion of  Jesus  is  stated  by  Luke  (24  :  50-52)  to  have  taken  place  directly 
after  the  resurrection.  But  Luke's  narrative  here  is  clearly  condensed;  and 
he  (as  author  of  Acts  1  :  2)  says  definitely  that  the  intervening  period  was 
one  of  forty  days.  Moreover,  the  number  of  appearances  of  Jesus,  as  given 
by  all  authorities,  strongly  suggest  a  considerable  interval. 

2  Mr.  Bouchier  thinks  (Syria  as  a  Roman  Province,  p.  264)  that  at  this 
point  in  the  ceremony  an  image  of  Adonis  was  thrown  up  into  the  air. 


326    MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

concerned,  as  anything  more  than  a  kind  of  magical  cer- 
emony to  secure  the  fertility  of  the  land  during  the  fol- 
lowing year.1 

Now,  it  is  impossible  to  compare  a  scene  of  this  sort 
with  the  story  of  the  ascension  of  Jesus.  Whether  the 
apostles  and  the  other  earliest  Christians  were  right  or 
wrong,  they  certainly  believed  that  they  had  witnessed 
the  departure  of  Jesus  from  this  world.  If  this  were  not 
a  fact  of  some  order,  then  we  are  dealing  with  a  case  of 
hallucination  or  one  of  imposture. 

Again,  in  the  case  of  Herakles — who  really  has  no 
resurrection  (cited  by  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  Christian- 
ity and  Mythology,  p.  420) — after  putting  on  the  robe 
tinged  with  the  philter  of  Nessus,  and  when  the  venom 
contained  in  the  latter  had  begun  to  consume  his  flesh, 
he  went  to  Mount  Oeta,  where  he  built  a  funeral  pyre, 
ascended  it,  and  caused  it  to  be  set  alight.  While  the 
pyre  was  flaming  a  thunder-cloud  of  Zeus  is  said  to  have 
conveyed  the  sufferer  to  heaven  where  he  was  endowed 
with  immortality.2 

Here,  again,  it  is  impossible  to  see  how  a  story  of  this 
type  could  have  suggested  to  any  reasonable  and  earnest 
men,  such  as  the  early  Christians  were,  any  mere  fanciful 
story  of  an  actual  ascension.  It  is  wholly  different  both 
in  motif  and  in  detailed  incidents.    Even  Mr.  Robertson 

1  The  original  (pre-Christian)  ascension  of  the  dying  god  was  undoubtedly 
merely  from  Hades  to  earth.  Cf.  the  story  of  Tammuz  (p.  324,  note  1), 
which  goes  back  at  least  5,000  years  and  is,  perhaps,  the  oldest  extant  form 
of  the  myth.  There  is  an  "ascension"  to  heaven  in  Babylonian  literature 
by  the  hero  Etana,  who  mounts  thither  on  the  back  of  an  eagle  in  order  to 
obtain  the  "plant  of  begetting"  (see  Jensen,  My  then  find  Epen,  pp.  100- 
105).  With  this  story  may  be  compared  what  Doctor  Budge  (Osiris,  etc.) 
indexes  as  "Osiris  ascends  to  the  heaven  of  Sefert,"  as  related  in  the  pyra- 
mid text  of  Unas.  In  this  the  deceased  king  (Unas),  identified  with  Osiris, 
mounted  on  the  hawk-headed  creature  Sefert,  who  was  in  charge  of  portions 
of  the  body  of  Osiris,  goes  to  heaven  where  he  works  magic  upon  or  for  Ra. 

2  According  to  another  variant  of  the  myth,  the  god  Eshmun-Iolaos  re- 
stored Herakles  to  life  by  giving  him  a  quail  to  smell  at. 


THE  ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN  327 

himself  appears  to  see  the  absurdity  of  such  a  derivation 
of  either  the  story  or  the  idea  which  it  contains;  for  he 
remarks  (p.  420)  that  the  suggestion  of  an  ascension  of 
Jesus  probably  came  "from  the  spectacle  of  the  litten 
clouds  at  sunset."  So  far  as  this  proposed  solution  of 
the  problem  is  concerned,  it  may  be  remarked  here  that 
imaginative  persons  have  often  derived  many  strange 
ideas  from  the  spectacle  of  a  gorgeous  sunset;  but  it  has 
nowhere  else  been  placed  on  record  that  any  one  has 
thought  that  he  saw  a  man  ascending  out  of  his  sight! 
To  Mr.  Robertson  himself  the  whole  scene  is,  of  course, 
"obviously  a  fable  born  of  ignorance.  Only,"  he  con- 
tinues, "in  a  world  living  under  the  primitive  delusion  of 
a  flat  earth  and  of  a  solid,  overarching  firmament  could 
such  a  fable  have  been  framed." 

This  is,  no  doubt,  a  very  superior  attitude  to  assume, 
and  highly  satisfying  to  all  of  a  like  mind  with  Mr.  Rob- 
ertson himself.  But  before  yielding  to  the  attractions  of 
so  facile  a  solution,  let  us  for  a  few  moments  examine  the 
original  story  a  little  more  closely. 

Assuming  here,  provisionally  and  for  the  present  pur- 
pose, the  existence  of  a  spiritual  world  and  the  survival 
of  a  spiritual  element  in  man,  the  question  arises  whither 
does  this  undying  ego  depart  at  death?  Now,  of  course, 
it  is  well  known  that  the  concept  of  a  passage  from  this 
lower  and  mainly  material  world  to  a  higher  and  coexist- 
ent spiritual  universe  has,  among  the  higher  races,  gen- 
erally been  formulated  and  depicted  in  terms  of  time  and 
space — as,  in  fact,  an  ascension  in  space.1 

1  It  may  not  be  inopportune  here,  in  order  to  show  to  what  degree  of  folly 
the  thoughtless  adoption  of  the  crude  concepts  of  untrained  minds  may  lead 
even  a  distinguished  modern  thinker,  to  quote  the  following  anecdote  chron- 
icled by  Doctor  F.  C.  Conybeare  {Myth,  Magic,  and  Morals,  pp.  358  and 
359).  He  says:  "The  Irish  mathematician,  Sir  William  Rowan  Hamilton, 
once  allowed  himself  to  be  drawn  into  the  speculation  of  how  far  out  into 
space  Jesus  could  proceed  in  a  certain  time  if  he  were  rising  at  the  moderate 
rate  which  the  above  passage  contemplates.  When  his  calculations  revealed 
to  him  that  he  would  not  have  reached  yet  the  nearest  of  the  fixed  stars,  he 


328   MYTHICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

But  such  descriptions  have  always  had  (except  among 
the  ruder  peoples  and  the  more  uncultured  races  of  man- 
kind) a  greater  or  less  degree  of  symbolical  meaning  at- 
tached to  them.  And,  even  in  the  case  of  those  races 
and  persons  who  have  made  considerable  advances  in 
culture  and  the  power  of  thought,  there  is  a  convenience 
in  this  mode  of  representation  which  it  would  be  difficult 
even  now  wholly  to  dispense  with.  Hence  we  can  under- 
stand the  use  of  such  concepts  by  the  more  backward 
people  of  the  first  century.  Probably  they  did  hold  to 
"the  primitive  delusion  of  a  flat  earth"  and  "a  solid,  over- 
arching firmament."  Almost  every  one  did  in  those  and 
even  later  times,  and  adjusted  their  ideas  of  things,  spirit- 
ual as  well  as  temporal,  in  accordance  with  this  common 
error.  But  this  is  not  really  the  important  point  here. 
What  the  writer  of  the  Acts  is  primarily  endeavouring 
to  impress  upon  his  readers  is  that  Jesus,  as  the  son  of 
God  and  man,  after  his  death  and  resurrection,  passed 
over  from  this  lower  and  material  to  a  higher  and  spirit- 
ual mode  of  existence,  i.  e.,  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  of 
God.  And  he  expresses  this  idea  in  the  only  form  in  which 
he  himself  and  his  readers,  for  the  most  part  at  least,  can 
grasp  it,  viz.,  a  temporal  and  spatial  one.  And  this  mode 
of  expression  is  still  necessary  to  a  very  large  extent  even 
nowadays.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  true  that 
there  are  in  these  times  an  increasing  number  of  persons 
to  whom  the  cruder  symbolisations  of  spiritual  truths  are 
less  necessary.  Some,  at  least,  will  have  learned  from 
the  immortal  work  of  Kant1  that  both  space  and  time — 
as  we  know  them — are,  perhaps,  but  mere  forms  of  our 
sense-perception,  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  concerned  with 
the  phenomenal  world;  and  we  are  able  dimly  to  under- 

began  as  a  good  Christian  to  recoil  from  his  speculation  and  relegated  the 
matter  as  a  mystery  beyond  the  reach  of  human  wisdom." 

This  story  is  in  the  highest  d  ^ree  instructive! 

1  The  Kritik  of  Pure  Reason  :  The  Transcendental  ALsilietic. 


THE  ASCENSION  TO  HEAVEN  329 

stand  that  the  passage  from  a  material  and  phenomenal 
to  a  spiritual  and  real  world  cannot  be  one  of  actual  spatial 
transition  at  all.  It  must  be  something  different  from  this: 
something  higher,  in  a  spiritual  sense;  something  which 
we  cannot  yet  fully  grasp  and  understand.  "For,"  says 
St.  Paul  (I  Cor.  13  :  12)  with  great  truth  and  insight, 
"now  we  see  in  (lit,  "through")  a  mirror  obscurely  (&-' 
iaoTTTpov  ev  alvi^\iaTi)^  but  then" — when  the  obscuring 
veil  of  the  senses  is  removed — "face  to  face;  now  I  know 
in  part,"  he  adds,  "but  then  I  shall  know  fully,  even  as 
also  I  was  fully  known." 


APPENDIX  A 

THE   DATES    OF    THE   BIRTH   AND   DEATH   OF   JESUS   CHRIST 

Most  readers  are  well  aware  of  the  hitherto  complete 
failure  of  the  efforts  of  chronologists  to  fix  the  dates  of 
the  above-named  events.  This  fact  is  sometimes  urged 
by  mythicists  as  an  additional  argument  in  favour  of  the 
non-historicity  of  the  Gospel  narratives. 

During  the  last  few  years,  however,  some  very  acute 
and  useful  researches  into  both  of  these  questions  have 
been  carried  on  by  Sir  William  Ramsay  and  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  G.  Mackinlay.  The  latter  gentleman  sums  up 
the  results  {The  Churchman,  July,  191 1,  p.  515)  as  fol- 
lows: "There  is  a  mass  of  secular  historic  evidence  in 
favour  of  8  B.  C.  and  29  A.  D.  for  the  dates  of  the  na- 
tivity and  the  crucifixion  respectively.  The  former  date 
agrees  with  the  express  statement  of  Tertullian  that 
Christ  was  born  during  the  rule  of  Sentius  Saturninus 
[in  Syria],  and  the  latter  date  is  in  accord  with  the  uni- 
versal testimony  of  the  early  Latin  fathers  that  the  Lord 
suffered  under  the  rule  of  the  Gemini. " 

We  will  give  here  a  very  brief  summary  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  these  dates  are  based. 

The  Birth.  The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  fixing  the  date 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus  have  been  largely  due  to  two  ap- 
parent errors  in  the  Lucan  narrative:  (1)  that  Quirinus 
was  connected  with  the  first  census  held  in  8  B.  C.  and 
(2)  that  in  certain  of  these  enrolments  in  the  eastern  prov- 
inces of  the  empire  it  was  the  custom  to  require  that  all 
should  return  to  their  ancestral  homes  for  purposes  of 
registration.  Both  of  these  statements  of  Luke  have 
been  frequently  denied  and  even  ridiculed  by  mythicists 
and  others  who  were  desirous  of  impugning  the  historical 
trustworthiness  of  that  writer. 

As  regards  the  former  of  these  points,  it  has  now  been 

331 


332  APPENDIX  A 

definitely  shown  by  Sir  William  Ramsay,1  from  the  indis- 
putable contemporary  evidence  of  inscriptions,  that  Quiri- 
nus  was  in  charge  of  Syria  about  10-7  B.  C,  and  prob- 
ably in  the  exact  years  9-8  B.  C,  the  period  of  the  first 
enrolment. 

The  second  point  has  also  now  been  settled  by  the  dis- 
covery and  publication  of  a  copy  of  a  similar  edict,  is- 
sued by  Gaius  Vibius  Maximus,  eparch  of  Egypt,  A.  D. 
104.  Sir  F.  G.  Kenyon,  in  an  editor's  note,  writes2  (p.  124) : 
"It  is  a  rescript  from  the  prefect  requiring  all  persons 
who  were  residing  out  of  their  nomes  to  return  to  their 
homes  in  view  of  the  approaching  census.  The  analogy 
between  this  order  and  Luke  is  obvious.  The  census  in 
question  is  that  of  the  seventh  year  of  Trajan  (A.  D. 
103-4)  and  the  determining  date  is  the  last  day  of  the 
year.  .  .  .  The  rescript  is  accordingly  issued  in  Epeiph, 
the  last  month  but  one,  which  would  give  time  for  the 
necessary  journeys.  .  .  .  Edicts  requiring  persons  to  re- 
turn to  their  own  homes  are  contained  or  mentioned  [else- 
where; four  documents  are  cited];  these,  however,  have 
no  reference  to  the  census  but  to  persons  who  have  left 
their  domiciles  to  avoid  Xecrovpyta  [public  duties]. " 

This  perfectly  plain  and — to  all  acquainted  with  East- 
ern customs — intelligible  order,  that  every  man  should 
return  home,  "each  to  his  own  hearthstone"  (hravekdeiv 
efc  to,  edvTcov  tyecma),  has,  however,  been  curiously  mis- 
understood by  Professor  W.  B.  Smith,  who  writes  ("The 
Real  Question  of  the  Ancestry  of  Jesus,"  The  Open  Court, 
January,  1910,  p.  13):  "On  census  day  every  one  should 
be  at  his  own  hearth,  surely  not  in  some  distant  ances- 
tral city !"  But  this  is  precisely  what  is  meant  here.  In 
ancient  law  and  custom  a  man  who  left  his  own  birth- 
place and  that  of  his  forefathers  was  a  vagrant  and  with- 
out any  rights  in  his  adopted  city  or  country;  he  was  not 

1In  his  articles  in  The  Expositor,  November  and  December,  191 2,  which 
complement  and  even  supersede  his  former  book,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Beth- 
lehem ? 

2  Greek  Papyri  in  the  British  Museum,  III,  125  (1907),  F.  G.  Kenyon  and 
H.  I.  Bell;  see  also  Milligan's  Greek  Papyri,  p.  73. 


APPENDIX  A  333 

even  numbered  in  a  census  of  the  population  of  the  latter. 
The  later  empire  largely  changed  this  old  view;  but  in 
the  East  old  customs  were  found  to  be  too  deeply  rooted 
and  too  strong  for  even  Roman  officials  to  override. 

A  somewhat  analogous  parallel  in  modern  times  is  the 
legal  status  of  an  alien,  that  is,  a  foreigner  resident  in  a 
country  which  is  not  his  own  and  where  he  has  not  been 
naturalised.  He  remains  there  on  sufferance  and  is  liable 
at  any  time  to  deportation  should  the  exigencies  of  the 
state  demand  it. 

The  Crucifixion  took  place,  we  are  told,  immediately 
before  a  Passover,  which  was  on  the  14th  day  of  the  first 
month  (Ex.  12  :  6).  It  was  also  upon  the  eve  of  a  Sab- 
bath, i.  e.,  on  a  Friday.  Several  dates  have  been  pro- 
posed as  " historically  possible" — A.  D.  29,  30,  and  33. 
Colonel  Mackinlay  maintains  that  these  conditions  are 
best  fulfilled  in  A.  D.  29. 

An  objection  to  this  date  has,  however,  been  raised  by 
the  Reverend  D.  R.  Fotheringham  on  the  ground  that  in 
A.  D.  29  the  14th  of  Nisan  did  not  fall  on  a  Friday  but 
on  a  Saturday,  because  (he  alleges)  Nisan  1  was  on  March 
5,  when  the  new  moon  was  first  visible.  Had  Nisan  1  fallen 
on  the  day  previous  (March  4),  Nisan  14  would  also  have 
been  a  day  earlier  (viz.,  Friday),  in  which  case  the  calen- 
dar would  have  agreed  with  the  supposition  that  A.  D.  29 
was  the  year  of  the  crucifixion. 

Now,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  whole  question  of  this 
date  practically  turns  upon  whether  the  new  moon,  by 
which  the  beginning  of  the  month  was  calculated,  could 
have  been  seen  just  after  sunset  on  March  4  in  that 
year.  The  young  moon  was  then  about  thirteen  and  a  half 
hours  old,  and  Colonel  Mackinlay  maintains  that  it  could 
have  been  seen  and  duly  reported  by  the  watchers  for  it 
to  the  priests.  In  proof  of  this  he  instances  the  fact  that 
in  the  year  1910  "Mr.  D.  W.  Horner,  a  well-known  and 
careful  observer,  and  three  others,  saw  the  new  moon 
[at  Tunbridge  Wells — about  six  hundred  feet  above  the 
sea-level]  with  the  naked  eye  on  February  10  .  .  .  when 
it   was  only  sixteen  hours    old."     It  is  true  that  the 


334  APPENDIX  A 

particular  moon  of  A.  D.  29  was,  at  the  time  in  ques- 
tion, 2.5  hours  younger  than  Mr.  Horner's  moon;  but 
Colonel  Mackinlay  points  out  that  (1)  it  was  placed 
about  as  favourably  for  visibility1  as  Mr.  Horner's  moon; 
(2)  the  atmosphere  of  Palestine  is  much  clearer  than  that 
of  England;  (3)  in  the  latitude  of  Jerusalem  (310  47'  N.) 
darkness  comes  on  after  sunset  more  rapidly  than  in 
England,  consequently  a  young  moon  can  be  more  eas- 
ily seen  in  Palestine;  (4)  Jerusalem  is  about  two  thou- 
sand six  hundred  feet  above  the  sea-level,  and  celestial 
objects  near  the  horizon  can  there  be  seen  with  greater 
clearness  than  from  a  lower  level  because  there  is  a  less 
density  of  air  to  see  through;  (5)  the  Jewish  observers 
were  specially  trained  to  search  for  the  new  moon  with 
the  naked  eye;  they  must  have  known,  too,  approxi- 
mately where  to  look  for  it — a  most  important  matter 
when  endeavouring  to  "pick  up"  a  faint  celestial  body. 

Mr.  E.  Walter  Maunder,  F.R.A.S.,  formerly  superin- 
tendent of  the  solar  department  in  the  Greenwich  Ob- 
servatory, discusses  the  question  in  The  Churchman, 
June,  191 2,  and  decides  that  it  was  quite  possible  for 
the  moon  to  have  been  observed  on  March  4,  as  Colonel 
Mackinlay  contends;  but  he  adds  (p.  472)  that  "in 
A.  D.  29  the  new  moon  of  March  fell  very  early,  indeed, 
to  be  taken  as  that  of  Nisan."  This  objection,  however, 
seems  not  to  be  in  any  sense  final,  and  the  date  advanced 
by  Colonel  Mackinlay  remains  quite  possible  and,  all 
things  considered,  probable.2 

1  See  The  Observatory,  May,  191 1,  p.  203.  The  elements  for  the  new  moon 
of  March  4,  A.  D.  29,  at  sunset  were:  altitude  (about)  6°,  difference  of 
azimuth  from  setting  sun  6.5°.  For  the  moon  of  1910  they  were:  altitude 
4. 5°,  difference  of  ^zimuth  io°. 

2  For  further  details  the  reader  should  consult  the  entire  discussion  in 
The  Churchman,  which  will  be  found  in  the  numbers  for  March,  1910,  April 
and  July,  191 1,  and  April,  June,  September,  and  November,  191 2.  But  see 
also  the  article  in  the  Jour,  of  Theo.  Studies,  October,  1910,  vol.  XII,  p. 
1 20,  where  the  writer  contends  that  the  new  moon  in  question  was  not  seen 
till  March  5.  In  that  case  the  choice  of  dates  would  rest  between  A.  D. 
30  and  33. 


APPENDIX  B 


AGNI  AND  AGNUS 


Doctor  Drews  labours  very  hard  to  equate  Agni,  as 
the  old  Vedic  fire-god,  with  Agnus,  the  lamb,  as  sacrificed 
at  the  Jewish  Passover,  which,  later,  was  regarded  by  the 
primitive  Christians  as  a  type  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  says 
(The  Christ  Myth,  pp.  144  and  145):  "In  the  church  of 
the  first  [?]  century,  at  Easter,  a  lamb  was  solemnly 
slaughtered  upon  an  altar  and  its  blood  collected  in  a 
chalice.1 

"Accordingly,  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity  the 
comparison  of  Christ  with  the  light  and  the  lamb  was  a 
very  favourite  one.  Above  all,  the  Gospel  of  John  makes 
the  widest  use  of  it.  As  had  already  been  done  in  the 
Vedic  cult  of  Agni,  here,  too,  were  identified  with  Christ 
the  creative  word  of  God  [Logos]  that  had  existed  before 
the  world,  the  life,  the  light,  and  the  lamb.  And  he  was 
also  called  'the  light  of  the  world'  that  came  to  light  up 
the  darkness  ruling  upon  the  earth,  as  well  as  '  the  Lamb 
of  God,  who  bore  the  sins  of  the  world.'  And,  indeed, 
the  Latin  expression  for  lamb  (agnus)  also  expresses  its  rela- 
tion to  the  ancient  fire-god  and  its  sanctity  as  a  sacrificial 
animal.    For  its  root  is  connected  with  ignis2  (Sansc,  agni, 

1  Reference  to  Doctor  Hatch's  Hibb.  Lects.  (1888),  The  Influence  of 
Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  upon  the  Christian  Church"  p.  300.  The  authority- 
given  by  Doctor  Hatch  is  Mabillon,  Com.  Prcev.  ad  Ord.  Rom.;  Musceum  Ital. 
II.,  XCIV.  Mabillon  here  remarks  that  the  complaint  of  the  Greeks  that 
the  pope  offered  a  lamb  on  the  altar  at  St.  Peter's  arose  from  a  mistake;  the 
lamb  had  been  roasted  for  eating  and  was  brought  for  the  papal  benedic- 
tion (Migne,  Patrologia  Lat.,  LXXVIII,  907,  1044).  Pope  Nicholas  I  said 
(Hardouin,  Concilia,  V,  309  D)  that  the  story  was  a  lie  of  the  Greeks,  and 
JEne&s,  Bishop  of  Paris  (ibid.,  318  A),  says  that  "only  a  fool  would  believe 
it."  Doctor  Hatch  has  evidently  been  misled  if  he  accepts  such  a  palpably 
cock-and-bull  story  as  a  statement  of  fact. 

2  Italics  ours. 

335 


336  APPENDIX  B 

'the  purifying  fire/  and  yagna,  ' victim '),  and  also,  ac- 
cording to  Festus  Pompeius,  with  the  Greek  hagnos,  'pure/ 
'consecrated/  and  hagnistes,  'the  expiator.'  In  this  sense 
Agnus  Dei,  'the  Lamb  of  God/  as  Christ  is  very  fre- 
quently called,  is,  in  fact,  nothing  else  than  Agni  Deus,  since 
Agnus  stands  in  a  certain  measure  as  the  Latin  translation 
for  Agni l  (Burnouf,  La  Science  des  Religions,  4th  ed.,  1885, 
pp.  186  /.)." 

Before  discussing  the  main  points  involved  in  the 
above  quotation  we  may  be  allowed  to  cite  the  remarks 
of  Doctor  Cheyne — a  not  altogether  unfriendly  critic — 
upon  the  position  taken  up  here  by  Doctor  Drews  (Hib- 
bert  Journal,  April,  191 1,  p.  660):  "One  is  sorry  that  the 
name  of  Burnouf  should  be  attached  to  what  I  may  call 
the  Agni-heresy  and,  in  general,  that  a  Burnouf  should 
have  set  the  example  of  the  misuse  of  the  Indian  (Vedic) 
key  to  religious  archaeological  problems. "  He  consoles 
himself,  however,  with  the  thought  that  it  is  not  the 
great  Burnouf,  but  a  relative,  who  has  thus  disgraced 
himself. 

Now,  according  to  Professor  Whitney,  the  eminent 
philologist  and  lexicographer,  agnus,  "lamb,"  is  proba- 
bly a  syncopated  form  of  avignus  (avis,  older  form  of 
ovis,  "sheep").  Hence,  agnus  must  mean  "the  sheep- 
born  animal"  (i.  e.,  ovi(g)natus  for  avi(g)natus) ,  the  same 
root  appearing  in  the  name  for  sheep  in  Sanscrit,  am,  and 
in   Greek  as  ofc  (=  opus)   [see  Curtius,  Greek  Etymology, 

596]. 

Agni,  on  the  other  hand,  is  derived  from  an  old  Aryan 
root,  ag,  "to  move  quickly,"  which  appears  in  the  Latin 
agilis,  "agile."  Fire  was  thought  by  the  Vedic  Indian 
to  be  the  manifestation  of  an  active  but  invisible  spirit 
which  had  been  born  in  the  "fire-stick"  and  issued  from 
the  wood.  "Men,"  says  Professor  Max  Miiller  (Lects. 
on  the  Orig.  of  Relig.,  p.  212),  "were  struck  most  by  his 
quick  movements,  his  sudden  appearances,  and  so  they 
called  him  the  quick,  or  agile;  in  Sanscrit,  agnis;  in  Latin, 
ignis." 

1  Italics  ours. 


APPENDIX  B  337 

The  god  Agni  was  regarded  by  the  early  Vedic  Indians 
as  the  carrier  to  the  gods  of  the  volatile  essence  of  the 
sacrifice,  and  in  that  sense  only  he  was  spoken  of  as  a 
"mediator"  between  the  latter  and  mankind. 

In  the  face  of  the  above  considerations,  therefore,  it 
cannot  be  said  that  Agnus  Dei  ("Lamb  of  God")  is  "noth- 
ing else  than  Agni  Deus"\  there  is  really  no  connexion, 
etymological  or  other,  between  the  words. 

The  lamb  was  par  excellence  the  sacrificial  animal  of 
the  nomadic  Hebrews  before  their  entrance  into  Canaan, 
and  was  so  employed,  in  all  probability,  long  before  the 
institution  of  the  Passover  as  we  know  it. 


APPENDIX  C 

THE   ASTRAL  DRAMA   OF   THE   CRUCIFIXION 

A  Mythical  Exposition  of  Psalm  221 

On  the  World-tree  (the  Milky  Way),  says  Professor 
Drews,  Orion  hangs  with  his  arms  and  legs  outstretched 
in  the  form  of  a  cross  (X,  crux  decussata).  Above  and 
bearing  down  upon  him,  on  his  left,  is  the  Bull  and  the 
group  of  stars  known  as  the  Hyades  (=  nazar);  Leo  is 
running  up  on  the  right.  Behind  Orion  is  the  Unicorn 
(Monokeros),  representing  the  herd  of  re'emim  (D^DNI), 

"wild  oxen,"  and  about  to  pierce  the  hanging  figure  with 
its  horn.    The  two  dogs  are  near  by. 

His  detailed  exposition  of  the  Psalm  is  as  follows: 

Vss.  1-5.  The  Cry  of  the  Sufferer:  uMy  God  (Eli),  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me"  etc.  The  sun  is  very 
far  away;  it  is  the  winter  half  of  the  ecliptic;  Orion  (as 
representing  the  sun2)  seems  to  cry  for  help  against  the 
dangers  of  the  winter,  which  threaten  him  with  extinction. 

Vs.  6.  "/  am  a  worm  and  no  man"  etc.  The  sun  in 
the  winter  time  is  pale  and  despised  and  creeps  over  the 
earth  like  a  worm.  Also,  the  Milky  Way,  in  which  Orion 
is,  stretches  like  a  worm  across  the  sky  when  Orion  sets 
in  the  beginning  of  winter.  In  the  Babylonian  myth  the 
Milky  Way  was  Tidmat,  described  as  a  "worm"  (=  rep- 
tile), which  the  sun  (=  Marduk)  split  into  two  halves  to 
form  respectively  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

Vs.  7.  "All  that  see  me  laugh  me  to  scorn"  etc.     The 

1  See  the  Appendix  to  The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus,  A.  Drews 
(1012). 

2  Among  the  Egyptians  Orion,  says  Doctor  Drews,  was  identified  with  the 
sun  and  moon  god  (Boll,  Sphcera,  1903,  p.  164;  but  see  p.  344,  note  2). 

338 


APPENDIX  C  339 

various  constellations  look  down  on  Orion  from  higher 
points  of  the  ecliptic,1  etc. 

Vs.  12.  "Many  bulls  have  compassed  me"  etc.  The 
zodiacal  sign  Taurus  is  charging  Orion,  who  is  flourishing 
his  club  with  his  right  hand,  while  with  his  left  he  thrusts 
forward  the  lion's  skin  {cf.  Herakles).  Professor  Drews, 
however,  thinks  that  he  is  "blessing"  with  his  uplifted 
(?)  left  hand.2 

Vs.  14.  "I  am  poured  out  like  water,"  etc.  The  celestial 
river  Eridanus  flows  beneath  the  feet  of  Orion;  it  seems 
to  flow  from  his  left  foot;  and  the  Milky  Way,  besides  be- 
ing regarded  as  a  tree,  may  be  taken  as  water  {cf.  Psalm 
69  :  2  and  15). 

Vs.  16.  "For  dogs  have  compassed  me,"  etc.  The  stars 
Sirius  and  Procyon,  in  the  constellations  Canis  Major 
and  C.  Minor,  are  behind  and  beneath  Orion. 

"  The  assembly  of  evil-doers  have  enclosed  me"  These  are 
the  constellations  Bull,  Dogs,  Lepus  (hare),  and  Dioscuri, 
or  Gemini  (twins),  who  are  described  as  " wicked"  (crimi- 
nals, robbers)  in  the  astral  myth  {cf.  Gen.  49) ,  where  they 
are  related  to  the  twins  Simeon  and  Levi,  and  are  called 
" bull-slayers,"3  because  they  drive  the  zodiacal  bull  be- 
fore them  and  push  him  out  of  the  heavens. 

"Like  the  lion  are  my  hands  and  feet"  (Massoretic  text). 

"They  pierced  my  hand  and  my  feet"  (LXX  version). 

1 E.  g.,  the  Twins  (Dioscuri,  Gemini)  "mock"  the  sun  as  it  moves  heavy 
and  dull  on  the  lowest  stretch  of  its  annual  path.  They  may  also  represent 
the  "two  thieves"  crucified  on  either  side  of  Jesus.  Niemojewski,  however, 
sees  the  two  evil-doers  ("thieves")  in  the  dogs  Sirius  and  Procyon.  Drews 
remarks  of  this  view:  "The  difference  is  not  great,  as  the  dogs  culminate  at 
the  same  time  as  the  twins  and  may,  therefore,  be  substituted  for  them." 
Castor  is  regarded  as  evil  on  account  of  his  relation  to  winter;  Pollux,  good, 
on  account  of  his  relation  to  summer.  The  twins  also  appear  as  the  "little 
boys"  who  jeered  at  Elisha  (the  sun):  "Go  up,  thou  baldhead"  (II  Kings 
2  :  23).  This  means  that  the  sun  has  lost  his  "hair"  (  =  heat  and  light  rays) 
at  the  lowest  point  of  his  course;  cf.  the  "solar  heroes"  Samson  and  He- 
rakles. 

2  It  is  the  right.    Moreover,  a  left-handed  blessing  would  be  ominous. 

3  Gen.  39  :  33  and  34,  however,  says  that  Simeon  and  Levi  were  not 
twins,  and  in  49  :  6  that  they  "slew  a  man  and  houghed  an  ox"  [oxen],  i.  e., 
in  the  sack  of  Shechem  (Gen.  34  :  25  and  29;  cf.  Joshua  6  :  21;  11  :  6  and  9). 


340  APPENDIX  C 

The  former  reading,  which  is  undoubtedly  corrupt,  Drews 
thinks  may  mean  that  the  wicked  (zodiacal  signs)  sur- 
round the  hands  and  feet  of  the  sufferer,  sicut  leo. 

But  there  may  be,  he  adds,  a  cryptic  reference  to  the 
constellation  Leo,  whether  because  the  chief  stars  in  it  are 
distributed  as  in  Orion,  and  represent  a  recumbent  Orion, 
or  because  of  the  astral  relation  of  Orion  to  Leo.  (He 
carries  the  lion's  skin  of  Herakles,  who  is  a  form  of  the 
sun-god.) 

The  meaning  of  the  LXX  version  is  explained  thus: 
The  (left)  hand  of  Orion,  which  carries  the  lion's  skin,  goes 
with  the  arrow  of  one  of  the  Twins  (Castor),  piercing  the 
hand ;  and  in  the  period  of  Taurus  the  constellation  of  the 
Arrow  is  in  opposition  to  the  arrow  of  Castor,  the  latter 
rising  in  the  east  when  the  former  sets  in  the  west. 

Vs.  17.  "I  may  tell  all  my  bones"  etc.  These  words 
recall  the  fact  that  no  other  constellation  shows  as  plainly 
as  Orion,  on  account  of  the  number  and  distribution  of  its 
stars  having  the  shape  of  a  human  being  with  extended 
limbs. 

Vs.  18.  "They  part  [by  lot]  my  garments,"  etc.  At  the 
same  time  the  shape  of  Orion  may  be  regarded  as  a  cup 
(dice-box)  with  the  three  ( ! )  stars  of  the  belt  as  dice1 
in  it.  The  vesture  of  Orion  is  the  heavens,  which  are 
often  conceived  as  a  "starry  mantle/ '  and  they  seem  to 
be  distributed  among  the  various  constellations. 

Or  we  may  take  the  Milky  Way  as  his  garment,  the 
"seamless  robe,"  because  it  runs  continually  across  the 
sky,  which  is  divided  at  the  Twins  into  two  halves  by  the 
passage  of  the  sun. 

Vs.  20.  "  Deliver  my  soul  from  the  sword;  my  darling  from 
the  power  of  the  dog."  The  sword  is  that  of  Orion,  which 
is  drawn  up  against  his  body.  The  dogs  are  Sirius  and 
Procyon. 

Vs.  21.  "  Save  me  from  the  lion's  mouth;  yea,  even  from  the 
horns  of  the  wild  oxen  thou  hast  answered  me"  The  lion's 
mouth  again  refers  to  the  Hyades,  or  to  the  constellation 
Leo,  which  seems  to  be  running  up  from  a  distance,  while 

1  Elsewhere  these  latter  are  regarded  as  the  "three"  Magi! 


APPENDIX  C  341 

the  Unicorn  indicates  the  herd  of  re'eniini.  The  LXX  ver- 
sion translates  the  latter  as  monokeros  (?  unicorn).  "The 
real  meaning  of  the  passage,"  says  Doctor  Drews,  "is 
lost  when  people  learned  in  philology  insist  that  '  the  uni- 
corn was  really  a  buffalo.'  "  ■ 

But  now  (vs.  22)  the  situation  changes.  Jahveh  has 
heard  the  sufferer's  cry.  The  sun  has  crossed  the  equa- 
tor and  the  better  season  (the  summer  half)  of  the  year 
has' begun.  "The  meek  shall  eat  and  be  satisfied."  In 
fervent  strains  the  delivered  sings  amid  the  chorus  of  stars 
("the  great  congregation")  the  praise  of  Jahveh.  Jahveh 
once  more  resumes  the  lordship  of  the  world  and  all  peo- 
ple gladly  praise  his  name. 

Other  general  features  introduced  into  the  drama  are: 
substituting  for  the  "crucified"  Orion  of  the  2 2d  Psalm 
the  two  other  important  crosses,  viz.,  the  vernal  Cross 
with  the  cup  (skull)  below  it,  the  Virgin,  Berenice's  Hair 
(megaddela  =  Mary  Magdalene),  etc.,  we  have  the  ele- 
ments of  Niemojewski's  annual  "astral  Via  Dolorosa." 

When  Orion  plays  the  part  of  the  crucified  Saviour, 
the  Pleiades  (the  "rain  sisters")  represent  the  weeping 
women  around  the  cross.  Electra,  the  supposed  centre 
of  the  Pleiades,  is  the  mythical  mother  of  Jasios  (=  Jesus) 
and  is  represented  with  a  cloth  over  her  head  just  as  in 
Christian  art  the  Virgin  Mary  is.  But,  as  Jasios  was  also 
regarded,  according  to  another  genealogy,  as  the  son  of 
Maia,  the  mourning  Pleiad  may  also  stand  for  her.  More- 
over, in  early  Christian  thought  the  mother  of  Jesus  is  a 
dove  (pelias  =  Pleiad). 

Without  going  into  any  detailed  criticism  of  the  text 
or  translation,  we  will  note  down  the  following  points  in 
relation  to  the  above  exposition: 

Doctor  Cheyne  regards  the  Hebrew  text  of  this  psalm 
as  very  corrupt,  and  if  his  view  be  correct  the  "paral- 
lels" drawn  will,  in  any  case,  be  considerably  discounted. 
E.  g.,  in  vss.  12-16,  Cheyne  wholly  rejects  the  reading 
dogs  (0^7?)  and  reads  only  "wild  oxen"  and  "lions." 
Both  of  these  animals,  he  thinks,  are  symbols  for  the  op- 

1  See,  however,  Enc.  Bib.,  art.  "Unicorn." 


342  APPENDIX   C 

pressors  of  the  Jews,  the  E^N*!  ("wild  oxen")  suggesting 
D^KErTV,  "Jerahmeelites."  Lagarde  (Orientalia,  II,  63/.) 
goes  much  further  and  identifies  the  several  animals  with 
the  rulers  of  various  neighbouring  peoples.  Thus  Tobiah 
the  Ammonite  is  referred  to  as  a  bull,  Geshur  the  Ara- 
bian as  a  lion,  and  Sanballat  the  Samaritan  as  a  dog. 
But  he  accepts  the  Massoretic  text  as  we  have  it. 

According  to  the  general  critical-historical  theory  the 
sufferer  is  clearly  the  ideal  community — the  faithful  Israel 
in  the  midst  of  an  unfaithful  nation  in  exile,  and  suffer- 
ing with  them,  not  an  individual.1 

The  conception  of  the  cosmogonic  or  world-tree,  of 
which  the  Scandinavian  Yggdrasil  is  the  most  familiar 
example,  is  very  wide-spread.  The  idea  is  met  with 
among  the  ancient  Chaldeans,  the  Egyptians,  the  Per- 
sians, the  Hindus,  and  the  Aryan  races  of  northern  Eu- 
rope as  well  as  in  the  mythology  of  China  and  Japan.  It 
would,  however,  be  interesting  to  learn  where  Professor 
Drews  found  it  identified  with  the  Milky  Way!  This 
galaxy  of  stars  is  referred  to  in  myth  as  a  road,  a  river, 
and  a  serpent  ("worm"),  or  dragon,  but  never,  to  the 
present  writer's  knowledge,  as  a  tree.2 

The  Cry  of  the  Sufferer.  Why  should  Orion  seem  to  be 
crying  for  help  at  this  time?  It  is  then  that  we  see  him 
dominant  in  the  sky ! 

Vs.  6.  It  is  scarcely  correct  to  describe  the  sun  as 
seeming  to  be  "pale  and  despised"  in  the  winters  of 
southern  Palestine  and  Egypt.  The  diminished  heat  and 
glare  is  a  welcome  change  from  the  oppressiveness  of 
summer. 

Vs.  7.  If  the  constellations  may  be  said  to  "laugh  at" 
Orion  at  one  time  of  the  year  they  do  so  at  every  other, 
for  they  never  change  their  relative  positions  and  passive 
relations  to  him. 

Vs.  16.  In  vs.  16  " they  pierced "  (^«3)  should  be  "they 
gnawed"    (lit.,    "dug  into").     The   Hebrew  word   was 

1  A  few  scholars  still  hold  to  the  individual  interpretation,  e.  g.,  Duhm 
and  Winckler,  etc. 

2  It  might  be  added,  too,  that  the  world-tree  is  not  a  cross. 


APPENDIX  C  343 

translated  "pierced"  from  a  desire  for  a  specific  refer- 
ence here  to  the  crucifixion  (Briggs).  Professor  Drews's 
mythical  arrangement  of  the  various  zodiacal  signs  is 
likewise  very  strained.  He  says,  e.  g.,  that  the  arrow  of 
Castor  "  appears  to  be  piercing  the  left  hand  of  Orion. " 
It  is  certainly  drawn  on  the  planisphere  in  the  same 
straight  line,  but  a  long  way  or!  him,  and,  in  the  present 
writer's  copy  (at  least),  the  point  of  the  arrow  is  turned 
in  the  opposite  direction. 

The  constellation  Arrow,  too,  seems  to  have  no  connex- 
ion with  Orion.  It  is  almost  the  antipodes  of  Orion,  in 
fact,  and  the  Greek  myth  does  not  represent  Sagitta  as 
a  long  lance.  Ptolemy  gives  for  it  only  rive  small  stars 
close  together. 

The  constant  changing  about  of  the  interpretation  of 
Orion,  who  is  {The  Witnesses  to  the  Historicity  of  Jesus, 
p.  55)  now  the  crucified,  now  (on  the  authority  of  Nie- 
mojewski)  his  slayer,  and  again  the  dice-box  used  in  the 
division  of  the  garments  at  the  crucifixion,  is  very  un- 
satisfactory. It  seems  possible  to  make  it  mean  any- 
thing one  chooses. 

Vs.  21.  Again,  it  is  impossible  to  see  any  astral  con- 
nexion between  the  Eyades  and  the  " lion's  mouth." 
And,  despite  all  the  confident  assertions  to  the  contrary, 
the  "unicorns"  (D^EKI)  probably  refer  to  the  Auroch 
(Bos  Primo  genius),  called  by  Caesar  (B.  G.,  VI,  28)  Urus. 
This  animal  when  sketched  from  the  side  point  of  view 
appears  to  have  only  one  horn  projecting  forward.  It 
was  a  larger  and  fiercer  animal  than  the  "fat  bulls  of 
Bashan." 

Further,  Professor  Drews  seems  to  have  forgotten  that 
the  constellation  Monokeros  (Unicorn)  was  only  devised 
by  Hevelius  about  1690  A.  D.  It  was  wholly  unknown 
to  the  ancients  and  could  not  have  figured  in  any  astral 
scheme ! l 

For  the  rest  we  must  protest  against  the  implied  iden- 

1  The  "astral  enemy"  of  both  the  sun  and  his  stellar  reduplication  Orion 
seems  to  have  been  the  constellational  Scorpion  (see  The  Primitive  Con- 
stellations, by  R.  Brown,  Jr.,  1899,  vol.  I,  pp.  67  jf.). 


344  APPENDIX  C 

tification  of  Pleiades  with  peleiades.  TIXeidBes  is  prob- 
ably derived  from  7r\eivf  "to  sail,"  because  these  stars 
rose  at  the  beginning  of  the  sailing  season  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean. IleXeta?,  "a  dove,"  on  the  other  hand,  is  prob- 
ably a  derivative  of  7re\eto?  [opvis],  "the  dusky  [bird]." 
The  later  Greek  poets,  it  is  true,  lengthened  IlXeidSe?  by 
an  extra  syllable,  thus  making  it  IleXetaSe?,  because  they 
regarded  them  as  doves  (as  also  thefTa8e?,  Hyades,  "  pig- 
lings," both)  fleeing  before  the  hunter  Orion,  whose  dog 
(Sirius),  we  may  add,  was  regarded  as  his  master's  faith- 
ful companion  and  friend. 

The  connexion  between  the  asterism  Berenice's  Hair 
and  Mary  Magdalene  is  very  fanciful  and  forced,  depend- 
ing, as  it  does,  upon  a  second-century  A.  D.  and  slan- 
derous Jewish  story  that  the  latter  was  a  dresser  of  wom- 
en's hair  and  a  courtesan. 

The  Pleiades  (p.  314,  1.  15)  is  apparently  an  error  for 
Hyades,  who  are  "the  weepers,"  because  they  are  con- 
nected with  the  rainy  season.  Electra,  moreover,  is  a 
Pleiad.  As  Eastern  women  are  commonly  depicted  in 
art  as  covered  and  veiled,  there  is  no  significance  in  both 
the  Virgin  Mary  and  Electra  being  so  represented.  The 
Virgin  was  sometimes  represented  by  the  symbol  of  the 
dove;  but  the  dove  was  never  said  to  be  the  mother  of 
Jesus.1 

Finally,  as  regards  the  main  points  of  the  astral  "paral- 
lels," though  Orion  does  not  well  represent  the  sun  on  his 
annual  journey,  because  he  is  quite  off  the  latter's  path 
(the  ecliptic),  he  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  celes- 
tial reduplication  of  the  sun2  (The  Primitive  Constellations, 
J.  R.  Brown,  Jr.,  vol.  I,  p.  92;  see  also  pp.  67^.  and  93). 
Also,  Orion  is,  roughly  speaking,  dominant  in  the  heavens 
during  the  period  of  the  sun's  depression.   He  cannot,  how- 

1  An  early  but  futile  attempt  was  made  to  identify  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
the  feminine  principle  of  the  Gnostic  deity. 

2  Doctor  Budge  says  (The  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  vol.  II,  pp.  215  and  249) 
that  the  star  ["constellation"]  Sah  (Orion)  was  the  abode  of  the  soul  of 
Osiris  (the  sun).  But  this  is  hardly  identifying  Orion  with  the  sun  (c/„ 
p.  338,  note  2). 


APPENDIX  C  345 

ever,  be  said  to  "  hang  on"  the  Milky  Way,  for  he  only 
just  touches  the  end  of  it. 

Lastly,  most  of  the  constellations  comprising  Niemo- 
jewski's  celestial  Via  Dolorosa  are  not  on  the  sun's  actual 
path  at  all.  Indeed,  the  whole  astral  scheme  is  fantastic 
and  improbable  in  the  extreme,  and  no  proof  is  offered 
that  it  was  ever  devised  in  this  form,  or  interpreted  in  this 
sense,  before  the  time  of  Christ. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Dr.  E.  A.,  on  Nazarene  and 
Nazoraean,  104,  n. 

Abhinishkramana  Sutra,  14. 

Accidentia  and  substantia,  190. 

Acts  of  Thomas,  187. 

Adam  and  Eve,  the  Book  of,  221. 

Additamenta,  the,  230. 

Adonis,  18,  91,  280;  ascension  of,  325; 
resurrection  of,  316,  317. 

^Eneas,  descent  of,  to  Hades,  -,04. 

^Esculapius,  321. 

'AyaOds,  207. 

Aglaophamus,  129. 

Agni,  6,  17,  22;  birth  of,  31,  35,  335, 
336,  337;  derivation  of,  336,  337. 

Agni-hotra,  35,  n. 

Agnus,  derivation  of,  336,  337. 

Agony  in  the  Garden,  the,  213. 

Ala  a,  69. 

Alford,  Dean,  on  the  reading  of  Mat- 
thew 27  :  16,  267. 

'Almah,  87,  n. 

Alpha  and  Omega,  280. 

Alphseus  (=  Alpu?),  238,  n. 

Amma  (Ma),  8. 

Anastasius  of  Sinai,  265. 

1Avao,Tavp6w,  291. 

^Avaaxt-vdvXeiw,  291,  292. 

Anderson,  Dr.,  on  the  trial  of  Jesus, 
230,  231. 

Angel-self,  219. 

Angelophanies  at  the  tomb,  the,  222, 

3i4- 
Ani,  236. 
Ankh,  as  representing  phallus,  284,  »., 

285,  n. 
Anna  Perenna,  247. 
Anna,  the  prophetess,  44. 
Annas  and  Caiaphas,  245,  246,  247. 
Annunciation,  24. 
Anonymous    Sanscritist,    on    Christian 

episodes  in  Krishna-myth,  77. 
Anthesteria,  316,  n. 
Anwyl,  Prof.,  on  Esus  (Hesus),  69. 
Aoa,  2  So. 


Aphrodite,  124,  131,  317. 

"'Airoypacpeadai,  translation  of,  39,  n. 

Apostles  as  signs  of  the  zodiac,  the, 
238,  239,  n. 

Apuleius  on  Isiac  cult,  16;  on  magic, 
289;  (Metamorphoses),  19. 

Arallu,  303. 

Arrest  of  Jesus,  the,  218. 

Ascension,  the,  of  the  dying  god,  326; 
to  heaven,  the,  323,  327,  328. 

Ascensions,  mythic,  324,  n. 

Asherim,  279. 

Asita,  blessing  of,  45. 

Ass,  the,  in  myth  and  symbol,  36,  n. 

Assassins,  see  Zealots. 

Astral  body,  219,  223,  224. 

Atia,  7,  n. 

Attis,  burial  of  image  of,  316,  «.;  res- 
urrection of,  318. 

Augustus  on  massacre  of  children  at 
Bethlehem,  58. 

Auroch,  the,  as  the  Unicorn,  343. 

Avalokiteswara,  descent  of,  to  Hades, 

307. 
Azazel,  138,  139. 

Babylonian  ascensions,  326,  «.;  litur- 
gies, 13,  n. 

Bacchus  (Dionysus),  167. 

Bacon,  Prof.  B.  W.,  on  Jensen's  theory 
of  Gospel  origins,  74;  on  young  man 
who  fled  naked,  225. 

Balaam  and  the  natal  star,  46. 

Ball,  C.  J.,  on  Tammuz,  280. 

Bancroft,  Mr.,  on  the  cross,  282. 

Baptism  of  Jesus,  the,  no. 

Barnett,  Dr.,  on  Christian  sources  of 
Krishna-myth,  77. 

Bar  Rabban,  260. 

Bas-reliefs  of  Mithraic  cult-meal,  202. 

Basil  the  Great,  163. 

Batiffol,  Mgr.,  on  Karabas,  260,  266,  n. 

Battles  with  demons,  305. 

Beal,  S.,  on  the  svastika,  284. 

Beardless  One,  feast  of,  261,  270. 


347 


348 


INDEX 


Bebel,  216. 

Ben  Pandira,  5,  233. 

Ben  Stada,  5,  233. 

Berossus,  no,  127. 

Bethabara,  123,  129. 

Beth-Din,  233. 

Bethlehem,  89;  tableaux,  34,  n. 

Betrayal,  the,  214. 

Bimbasara  as  a  prototype  of  Herod,  56, 
n.;  and  the  young  Buddha,  56. 

Binet-Sangle,  on  the  visions  of  Jesus, 
114,  n.y  115,  n.,  165,  n. 

Birth  of  Jesus,  the,  31;  date  of,  33,  331. 

Blake,  J.  F.,  on  the  patriarchs  as  signs 
of  the  zodiac,  106,  n. 

Blass,  Dr.,  on  reading  of  Matthew 
21  :  7,  172,  n. 

Blessing  of  Simeon,  the,  45. 

Blumhardt,  Mr.,  on  "Krishna  and 
Christ,"  78,  79- 

Body,  natural  (psychical),  224;  spirit- 
ual, 224. 

Book  of  the  Dead,  on  Petra,  238. 

Box,  G.  H.,  on  the  Last  Supper,  182,  n. 

Boyd,  Dr.,  on  "Mary"  (Miriam),  9. 

Brown,  J.  R.,  Jr.,  on  the  astral  enemy 
of  the  sun,  343,  n.\  on  Orion  as  a  re- 
duplication of  the  sun,  344. 

Brown,  Hon.  W.,  on  Judas  Iscariot,  252. 

Buddha,  as  ninth  avatar  of  Vishnu, 
66,  n.;  resurrection  of,  322;  the  temp- 
tation of,  142;  the  transfiguration  of, 
156. 

Budge,  Dr.,  on  the  ascension  of  Osiris, 
324,  n.,  326,  n.;  on  name  Osiris, 
68,  ».;  on  Petra,  239. 

Bunsen,  de,  on  the  virgin  birth  of  the 
Buddha,  39,  n. 

Burial  of  Jesus,  the,  299. 

Burnouf,   M.,   on  derivation  of  Agni, 

336. 
Butler,  Mr.,  on  the  betrayal  of  Jesus, 
199  Jf.;  on  the  burial  in  the  new  tomb, 
299,  300,  301;  on  the  crown  of  thorns, 
274,  275;  on  the  Eleusinian  sacra- 
mental meal,  191;  on  the  Epidauria, 
321;  on  the  expulsion  of  the  traders, 
174;  on  the  last  words  of  Jesus,  295, 
296;  on  the  mockery  of  Jesus,  271, 
273;  on  irapadLSw/M  and  trpodiduixi, 
193;  on  the  phrase  eh  *a0'  eh,  201; 
on  the  purification  in  the  mysteries, 
195;  on  the  tomb,  288,  n.;  on  the 
touching  in  the  mystery-cults,  200. 


Caiaphas  (Joseph),  229,  244,  245,  247. 

Cancer  (Crab),  168. 

Capernaum,  102,  109. 

Carpenter,  Dr.  J.  E.,  on  the  crown  of 

thorns,  275. 
Cams,  P.,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 

311- 

Cheyne,  Dr.  T.  K.,  on  Agni  and  Agnus, 
336;  on  the  ascension,  323;  on  Ba- 
rabbas,  261,  ».;  on  13J  "13,  23,  n.;  on 
the  cross,  284;  on  the  descent  to 
Hades,  304,  305;  on  Gethsemane, 
212,  n.;  on  Judas  Iscariot,  248,  249; 
on  the  massacre  of  the  children,  57; 
on  the  Messiah  Ben  Joseph,  21;  on 
the  name  Jesus,  63,  n.,  66;  on  Naza- 
rene,  100,  n.;  on  Nazareth,  94,  n.,  97; 
on  the  temptation  of  Jesus,  148;  on 
the  text  of  Psalm  22,  341;  on  virgin 
of  zodiac,  15;  on  young  man  who  fled, 
221. 

Christ-cults,  81. 

Christ  and  Krishna,  75. 

Christ,  name  of,  75. 

Christianity  introduced  into  India,  76. 

Chrysostom,  St.  John,  265. 

Clemen,  C,  on  Gospel  idea  of  the  con- 
ception, 26,  n.;  on  the  Magi,  49;  on 
the  resurrection  of  Iacchus,  322. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  the  Eleusin- 
ian mysteries,  191;  on  the  pagan  mys- 
teries, 192,  197. 

Coming  One,  the,  157,  n. 

Commodus,  Emperor,  203,  n. 

Common  meal  at  Eleusis,  191. 

Common  terms  in  Christianity  and 
mystery-cults,  205. 

Conception,  24. 

Conrady,  on  birth  of  Jesus,  34,  n. 

Conybeare,  F.  C,  on  the  ascension,  323; 
on  the  meaning  of  eTri<ria&fa,  26,  n. 
on  parthenogenetic  births  of  patri- 
archs, 41,  n. 

Course  of  Abia,  33,  n. 

Cowell,  Prof.  E.  B.,  on  Avalokit^s- 
wara's  descent  to  Hades,  306;  on  name 
"Jes"  (Jeseus,  Jezeus,  Yeseus),  67. 

Creighton,  Dr.,  on  the  cause  of  death  of 
Jesus,  299,  n. 

Criobolia,  203. 

Cross  and  its  astral  significance,  the, 
282. 

Crown  of  thorns,  reed,  and  purple  robe, 
the,  274. 


INDEX 


349 


Cruciarius,  the,  2go,  n. 

Crucifixion,  the,  286  Sa  date  of,  331, 

333- 

Crurifragium,  290,  n.,  297,  298. 

Crux  commissa,  283. 

Crux  composita,  287. 

Crux  simplex,  287. 

Cumont,  M.,  on  the  Mithraic  bas-re- 
liefs, 202;  on  the  mysteries  of  Mithra, 
203,  204,  313. 

Cursing  of  the  fig-tree,  the,  175. 

Cybele,  mysteries  of,  203. 

Cyrus  and  the  shepherds,  44. 

Daniel  9  :  26,  interpretations  of,  81,  n. 

Daoud  (Dod,  Dodo),  91,  92. 

David,  meaning  of,  92,  n. 

Death  of  Jesus,  cause  of,  298,  n.,  299,  n. 

De  Loosten,  see  Loosten,  De. 

Del  Mar,  Mr.,  on  meaning  of  name  "Ies- 
iris,"  68,  n. 

Delphi,  a  parallel  from,  61. 

Deluge,  the,  119,  n. 

Demeter,  4. 

Demonic  possession,  152. 

Demons,  see  Mazzikim. 

Dendera  planisphere,  36,  «.,  37,  n. 

Denials  of  Jesus,  238. 

Descension  to  Hades,  the,  302. 

Descensions,  certain  mythical,  324. 

Descent  of  Istar,  302. 

Descents,  mythic,  304. 

Devaki,  14,  38,  40,  76. 

Dibbara,  79. 

Dionysus,  descent  of,  to  Hades,  304;  as 
a  form  of  sun-god,  72,  73;  mysteries 
of,  203,  «.;  resurrection  of,  318. 

Dionysus-myth,  31. 

Dionysus-Zagreus,  mysteries  of,  197,  n.; 
myth  of,  310,  n. 

Discourse  with  the  doctors  of  the  law, 
the,  60. 

Disembodied  spirit,  221. 

Docetce  and  the  crucifixion,  220,  221, 
224,  n. 

Drews,  Prof.  A.,  on  Agni  and  Agnus, 
335;  on  Barabbas,  261;  on  Bethlehem, 
92;  on  the  betrayal,  214  j?.;  on  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  31,  38;  on  Christ  and 
Krishna,  75;  on  common  derivation  of 
names  of  "saviour-gods,"  70;  on  the 
cross,  283;  on  the  crucifixion,  286, 
289;  on  the  entry  into  Jerusalem,  172; 
on  the  expulsion  of  the  traders,  175; 


on  the  flight  into  Egypt,  53 ;  on  Gali- 
lee, 100,  105;  on  Gethsemane,  208;  on 
Golgotha,  280;  on  Hesus  (Esus),  69; 
on  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist, 
178  /.;  on  Jes  Crishna,  66;  on  Jesus 
Barabbas,  265;  on  Jesus  and  John  as 
phases  of  the  sun,  121  £.;  on  John  the 
Baptist,  115,  116;  on  Judas  Iscariot, 
252;  on  the  lance  wound,  297;  on  the 
Magi,  47;  on  the  massacre  of  the 
children,  56;  on  the  meaning  of  Alpha 
and  Omega,  280;  on  Messiah  Ben 
David,  80,  n.;  on  Messiah  Ben 
Joseph,  80,  «.;  on  the  Mithraic  bull, 
319,  n.;  on  the  name  Jesus,  64;  on 
Nazareth,  93;  on  Nazoraean,  96;  on 
Peter,  234;  on  Pilate,  241,  242;  on 
the  reading  of  Matthew  27  :  16,  265; 
on  the  three  days,  308,  309;  on  the 
transfiguration  of  Jesus,  158;  on  the 
trial  of  Jesus,  232;  on  the  two  thieves, 

293- 
Driesch,  Dr.  H.,  on  vitalism,  190,  n. 
Dumuzi,  280. 
Ativans,  the,  of  Jesus,  185  $.;  as  the 

cause   of   miracles,    186  jf.;   in   the 

eucharistic  elements,  189,  190. 
Dupuis,  15;  on  the  divine  birth,  32;  on 

John  the  Baptist,  no;  on  the  revival 

of  the  cult-gods,  310,  n. 
"Dying  God"  cult,  the,  310,  n. 
Dying  kings  in  Babylonia,  262,  n. 

Ea  (Aa,  Ae),  127. 

Eabani,  73,  146,  302. 

Edersheim,  Dr.,  on  Jewish  trials,  229,  n. 

Edkins,  Dr.,  on  the  resurrection  of  the 

Buddha,  322. 
Efs  /ca#'  eh,  194,  201. 
Eisler,  Dr.,  on  John-Jonah-Oannes,  128. 
Elagabal,  282,  n. 
Electra  (Pleiad)  as  the  Virgin  Mary, 

344;  _ 
Eleusinia,  191,  196. 

Eleusinian  mysteries,  191  jj.,  271. 
Elijah,  as  a  form  of  the  sun-god,  122, 

126;  meaning  of  name,  161. 
Eliphar  the  Temanite,  29. 
Elisaeus,  14. 

Elisha,  baldness  of,  339,  n. 
Elizabeth,  24. 
Empty  tomb,  the,  311. 
Entry  into  Jerusalem,  the,  167  f. 
Eoa,  see  Aoa. 


350 


INDEX 


Epidauria,  the,  321. 

Epiphanius,  93,  98. 

Epoptae,  193. 

Eridanus,  101,  n.,  120,  123. 

Esus,  see  Hesus. 

Eucharist,  institution  of ,  178;  and  Mith- 
raic  cult-meal,  202;  words  of  institu- 
tion, 189. 

Eu<re/3^s,  207. 

Expulsion  of  the  traders,  the,  174. 

Ferhouer  (frohar),  219,  223,  224,  227. 

Festus  Pompeius,  336. 

Fiebig,   on  the  angelophanies  at    the 

tomb,  314;  on  the  darkness  at  the 

crucifixion,  293,  n.;   on  gifts  offered 

to  new-born  sun-god,  52. 
Fig-tree,  "cursing"  of,  175. 
Firmicus  Maternus,    on    the    mystery 

meal,  196. 
First  day  of  week,  the,  312. 
Flight  into  Egypt,  the,  53. 
Forty  days,  the,  324. 
Fotheringham,  D.  R.,  on  the  date  of  the 

crucifixion,  333. 
Franckh,  on  virgin-goddesses,  13,  n. 
Franke,  on  the   entry  into  Jerusalem 

174,  n. 
Fravishi,  219,  221,  223,  224. 
Frazer,  Sir  James  G.,  on  the  crucifixion 

of  Jesus,  263;  on  kings  put  to  death 

as  representing  a  god,  262,  «.;  on  the 

two  thieves,  293. 
Fries,  on  the  expulsion  of  the  traders, 

176. 
Fuhrmann,  100,  108,  123,  n. 

Gabbatha,  see  LithostrSton-Gabbatha. 

Gadarene  swine,  Jensen  on,  74. 

Galil,  100,  105. 

Galilee,  100;  and  the  zodiac,  101. 

Gamaliel,  229,  n. 

Gammadion,  see  Svastika. 

Gardner,  Dr.  P.,  on  ethics  of  pagans, 
206;  on  pagan  and  Christian  purity, 
207. 

Gautama  (Buddha),  birth  of,  39;  temp- 
tation of,  142  f. 

Gautier,  L.,  on  Gethsemane,  212. 

Gennesaret,  102. 

Tevd/xevov  ii<  yvvaiicSs,  translation  of, 
27. 

Gethsemane,  208;  meaning  of,  210. 


Ghillany,  F.  W.,  on  the  five  hanged 

kings,  299;  on  the  lance  wound,  297. 
Gifts  at  the  nativity,  the,  52. 
Gifts  offered  to  Gautama  (Buddha),  53. 
Gilgals,  281,  282. 
Gilgamesh  epic,  as  a  source  of  story  of 

Jesus,  73. 
Goethals,  on  Marcan  account  of  trial 

of  Jesus,  230,  n. 
Golgos,  280,  281. 
Golgotha,  280,  281. 
Gospel  of  Peter,  271,  273. 
Graces,  Jewish,  189. 
Great  Mother  with  Attis,  mysteries  of, 

196. 
Greek  names  for  Jewish,  65. 
Gressmann,  on  Isaiah  53,  81,  n. 
Tv/xv6s,  220. 

Habakkuk  3  :  2,  reading  of,  37. 

Hadad-Adonis,  47,  64. 

Hadad-Rimmon,  63,  n. 

Hada  the  Edomite,  54. 

Hadrian,  Emperor,  91. 

Hallel,  the,  198. 

Hallucinations  and  veridical  phenom- 
ena, 163,  n.,  165,  n. 

Haman- Jesus,  262. 

Hamilton,  Sir  W.  R.,  and  the  ascen- 
sion, 327,  n. 

Hammurabi  as  Babylonian  saviour,  79. 

Handing  over,  or  betrayal,  199. 

Hanging  figure,  the,  102,  107,  108. 

Ea-noser  (ha-nosri),  97. 

Harris,  Dr.  R.,  on  I  Peter  3  :  19,  302  n. 

Hatch,  Dr.  E.,  on  the  sacrifice  of  a  lamb 
at  Easter,  338,  n. 

Haupt,  P.,  on  Nazareth,  94,  n. 

Heavenly  Jordan,  see  Eridanus. 

Heavenly  self,  the,  221,  223. 

Helios,  126. 

Herakles,  ascension  of,  to  heaven,  325; 
descent  of,  to  Hades,  304. 

Hermes,  birth  of,  31. 

Herod,  interview  with  Jesus,  229. 

Herodotus,  on  the  Magi,  49, 

Hesiris,  see  Jes-iris. 

Hesus,  69. 

Hibil  Ziva,  303. 

Hirsch,  on  the  visions  of  Jesus,  114,  «., 
150,  ».,  165,  n. 

Holtzmann,  on  Judas  Iscariot,  249. 

Holy  Spirit,  the,  and  the  Gnostic  femi- 
nine principle  in  deity,  334,  ». 


INDEX 


351 


Horner,  D.  W.,  333. 

Horus,  birth  of,  34,  n. 

Hosea  6  :  2,  and  the  resurrection,  311. 

Hour  of  crucifixion,  231,  n. 

Huitzilopochtli,  204. 

Hyades,  the,  344. 

Iacchus  in  the  Eleusinian  mysteries, 

321. 
'I5^a,  of  Plato,  223. 
Idealism  in  Germany,  founders  of,  27. 
Isaiah  53,  interpretations  of,  81. 
Iscariot,  Judas,  248  jf. 
Isiac  mysteries,  34. 
Isis,  5. 
Istar,  descent  of,  302. 

Jacobs,  Prof.,  on  Purim,  263. 

Jah-Alpha-Omega,  73. 

Jahveh,  as  a  fire-god,  126. 

James,  W.,  on  souls,  152. 

Janus,  66,  234,  235,  236,  237,  238,  239, 
240. 

Jao  and  JHVH,  72. 

Jasios  (Jasion),  4,  64,  65. 

Jasius,  see  Jasios. 

Jensen,  on  origin  of  story  of  Jesus,  73; 
on  the  temptation,  146;  on  the  trans- 
figuration, 163,  «.;  on  Virgin  of  zodiac, 

15- 

Jerahme'el,  94,  n. 

Jeremias,  on  gifts  offered  to  new-born 
sun-god,  52;  on  Virgin  of  zodiac,  15. 

Jerome,  94;  on  Pilate,  240. 

Jes  Crishna,  66. 

Jes-iris,  66. 

Jessaioi,  96,  n. 

Jesus  [  ?  Barabbas],  256. 

Jesus  Barabbas,  list  of  manuscript  hav- 
ing this  reading,  265,  266;  modern 
editors  who  adopt  or  reject  this  read- 
ing, 266,  267,  268. 

Jesus-cults,  82. 

Jesus,  date  of  birth  of,  125;  as  an 
Ephraimitic  sun-god,  251,  n.;  and 
John  as  phases  of  the  sun,  121  f.;  the 
name,  meaning  of,  63,  71. 

Jewish  boys'  education,  61. 

Jewish  Encyclopedia  (Nazareth),  94,  n. 

JHVH,  derivation  and  meaning  of,  72. 

Jinns,  235,  n. 

John  the  Baptist,  108,  118;  as  Oannes, 
122,  123;  date  of  festival  of,  129. 

Jonah,  128,  309,  n. 


Jonah  and  the  three  days,  309. 

Jones,  W.  S.,  on  the  stabbing  of  the 
bull,  319,  n. 

Jordan,  the  astral  significance  of,  102,  «. 

Joseph  (N.  T.),  16;  (O.  T.),  3. 

Josephus,  93 ;  on  John  the  Baptist,  1 15,  n. 

Joshua  (Jesous),  4;  meaning  of  name, 
63,  64,  65,  n. 

Jowett,  B.,  on  translation  of  dvaaxiy- 
SvXeuu,  291. 

Judas  Iscariot  and  the  betrayal,  188, 
199,  217;  as  Ahitophel,  217;  deriva- 
tion of  name,  248  jf. 

Julian,  Emperor,  100. 

Julius,  derivation  of,  70. 

Just  man,  the,  291,  292. 

Justin  Martyr,  and  the  cave  of  Bethle- 
hem, 31,  n.;  on  Mithra,  320;  on  the 
mockery  of  Jesus,  271;  on  the  Mith- 
raic  cult-supper,  203. 

KakoKa.ya.d6s,  207. 

Kant,  I.,  a  critical  idealist,  27,  «.,  328. 

Karabas,  257,  261. 

Karshipta,  304. 

Kautsky,  217. 

Keim,  Th.,  on  Josephus's  narrative  of 
the  baptism,  118;  on  Judas  Iscariot, 
249;  on  Nazarene,  95,  «.;  on  young 
man  who  fled,  etc.,  226. 

Kenyon,  Sir  F.  G.,  on  the  rescript  of 
Maximus,  332. 

Kepler,  on  star  of  nativity,  50. 

Keraba,  260. 

Ktpvos,  174. 

Kiddush,  the,  182,  n. 

Kinyras,  18,  22. 

Kircher,  on  gifts  offered  to  new-born 
sun-god,  52. 

Kiss  of  Judas,  the,  200. 

K67£  6/j.oIojs  7r<££,  296. 

K6y£  5fnra^,  296. 

Konig,  Dr.,  on  Bethlehem,  90. 

Krauss,  E.,  on  Judas  Iscariot,  256,  n. 

Krauss,  S.,  on  the  law  of  the  Passover, 
182,  n. 

Kpefx&vvvfju,  288. 

Krishna,  eighth  avatar  of  Vishnu,  66, 
».;  birth  of,  38,  39;  not  crucified,  76; 
in  early  Hindu  literature,  79;  and  the 
Magi,  76;  mother  of,  14;  and  the 
shepherds,  44. 

Kuenen,  on  blessings  of  Jesus  and  Gau- 
tama, 46. 


352 


INDEX 


Lachmu,  go. 

Lagrange,  on  Keraba,  260. 

Lake,  K.,  on  the  date  of  Herod's  mar- 
riage, 116,  n. 

Lalila  vistara,  14;  on  the  birth  of  the 
Buddha,  40. 

Lance  wound,  and  the  breaking  of  the 
legs,  297,  298,  299. 

Lang,  A.,  274,  n. 

Langdon,  Dr.  S.,  on  kings  who  played 
the  part  of  Tammuz,  262,  ».;  on  the 
ascension  of  Tammuz,  324,  n. 

Lassen,  on  introduction  of  Christian- 
ity into  India,  76. 

Last  Supper  as  the  Passover,  102,  n. 

Last  words  of  Jesus,  the,  295. 

Lehmann-Haupt,  C.  E.,  on  the  cruci- 
fixion and  Purim,  263,  264. 

Lewis,  Mrs.,  on  star  of  nativity,  51. 

Liknites,  31,  33. 

Lilitu,  divine  harlot,  13,  n. 

Lithostroton-Gabbatha,  242,  243,  244, 

245- 
Lobeck,  on  the  revival  of  the  cult-gods, 

310, ». 

Loosten,  De,  on  the  visions  of  Jesus, 

114,  n.,  150,  n.,  165,  n. 
Lost  Jesus,  the,  61. 
Lucian,  on  resurrection  of  Adonis,  317; 

on  the  ascension  of  Adonis,  325. 
Ludd  (Lydda),  233. 
Luke  2  :  1-5,  translation  of,  39. 

Ma,  8. 

Mabillon,  335,  n. 

Mariam,    derivation   and   meaning   of 

name,  9. 
Macdonell,   Prof.   A.   A.,   on  spellings 

"Crishna"  and  "Cristna,"  78. 
McDougall,  Dr.  W.,  on  vitalism,  152. 
Mackinlay,  Lieutenant- Colonel,  116;  on 

the  birth  of  Jesus,  331;  on  the  date  of 

the  crucifixion,  333,  334. 
Macrobius,    on    the    massacre    of    the 

children,  57. 
Magaden,  11. 
Magdala,  11. 
Magi,  the,  46. 
Maia,  4,  7. 
Maira  (Maera),  4,  7. 
Makkedah,  299. 
Mandane,  derivation  and  meaning  of 

name,  8,  n. 
Manger,  the,  33. 


Mara,  143  fi. 

Marcus,  96,  n. 

Mariamma,  14,  76. 

Maritala,  14. 

Mary,  3,  7;  derivation  and  meaning  of 

name,  9,  15,  20. 
Mary  Magdalene,  5,  12,  344. 
Massacre  of  the  children,  the,  55. 
Masseboth,  279. 
Matthew   2  :  n,    meaning  of,   52,   n.; 

1  :  16,    reading   of,    24,    ».;    27  :  17, 

reading  of,  265,  266,  267,  268. 
Maunder,  Mr.  E.  W.,  on  constellations 

of  Dupuis,  no,  «.;  on  date  of  cruci- 
fixion, 334. 
Maximus,  G.  V.,  rescript  of,  332. 
Max    Muller,   Prof.,  on  derivation  of 

Agni,  336;  on  name  "Jes"  (Jeseus, 

Jezeus,  Yeseus),  67. 
Maya,  4;  conception  of,  40,  45. 
Mazzikim,  235,  n. 
Meri,  4. 
Merris,  4. 
Messiah,  Ben  David,  17,  80;  Ben  Joseph, 

17,  21,  80. 
Mexican  Eucharist,  204. 
Migdal,  n. 
Milky  Way,  the,  101,  n.,  345;  as  the 

garment  of  the  crucified  Saviour,  340; 

as  a  river,  342;  as  Tiamat,  338;  as  the 

world-tree,  342. 
Milton,  on  Tammuz,  316,  n. 
Miriam  Magdala,  5;  (Mariam),  leprosy 

of,  11. 
Mirzam,  7. 
Mithra  (Mitra),   124;  resurrection  of, 

319. 

Mithra-myth,  13,  31,  33. 

Mithraic  bull,  stabbing  of,  319;  mys- 
teries, 202,  203. 

Mithraists  and  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
312,313. 

Mvrjfie'LOv  (Mvij/xa),  300,  301. 

Mockery  of  Jesus,  the,  270,  276. 

Monier  Williams,  Prof.,  on  name  "Jes" 
(Jeseus,  Jezeus,  Yeseus),  67. 

Monokeros  (constellation),  modern  char- 
acter of,  343. 

Mordecai-Barabbas,  262. 

Morgan,  Prof.  A.  de,  and  the  super- 
natural, 28,  n. 

Moses,  derivation  of  name,  9,  «.,  159. 

Mother  of  the  Buddha,  special  marks  of, 
40. 


INDEX 


353 


Moulton,  Dr.,  on  early  Zoroastrianism, 

223,  n. 
Mountain  of  the  Gods,  the,  136,  140. 
Movers,  on  identity  of  Jahveh  and  Jao, 

72;  on  meaning  of  JHVH,  72. 
Muller,  W.,  101. 
~M.v<TT^piovt  205. 
MyUtta  (muUtta),  5. 
Myrrha,  4,  7. 
Mystae,  193. 
Mysteries,  the,  297,  n. 
Mythic  descents,  304. 

Naasene  hymn,  85. 

Naasenes  (Ophites),  84. 

Napthali  as  Aries,  105. 

Natural  body,  the,  320. 

Nazareth,  93,  94,  n. 

Nazareth,  origin  and  meaning  of  name, 
94,  n. 

Nazoraean,  95,  99. 

Nazar-jah,  96,  n. 

Nea^as,  88. 

Nestle,  W.,  on  Nazareth,  96. 

Nezoraean,  99,  100,  n. 

Nicholson,  E.  B.,  on  reading  of  Mat- 
thew 27  :  16,  266. 

Nicodemus,  gospel  of,  307,  308. 

Niemojewski,  on  Pilate,  241;  on  the  two 
thieves,  339,  «.;  on  the  Via  Dolorosa, 

345- 
Nirvana,  322,  n. 
NSR  (NZR),  95- 
Nun,  meaning  of,  68. 

Oannes  (Iannes),  123,  127. 

Objections  to  Christ  as  a  cult-god,  87,  n. 

Od,  the,  of  von  Reichenbach,  186,  n. 

Odin  as  the  hanged  god,  292,  n. 

Oil-press,  210,  211,  212. 

Oldenberg,  Prof.,  on  the  temptation  of 
Jesus,  148. 

Ophites,  84. 

Orion,  as  the  abode  of  Osiris,  344,  ».; 
as  the  crucified  Saviour,  338,  340, 
341,  342;  and  the  Magi,  47,  101,  107, 
108,  123,  130;  as  a  reduplication  of 
the  sun,  341;  as  the  slayer  of  Christ, 
241;  as  the  sun  and  moon  god,  338,  n.; 
various  symbolisations  of.  343. 

Orpheus,  descent  of,  to  Hades,  304. 

Osiris,  ascension  of,  326,  ».;  birth  of, 
34;  burial  of  image  of,  316,  n.\  mean- 


ing of  name  of,  68;  myth  of,  310; 

resurrection  of,  315,  316. 
Ovid,  on  Adonis-myth,  316,  n. 
Ox  and  ass  in  birth-stories,  the,  37,  n. 

Pan,  136. 

Uapadidcopn    and    7rpo5i5o)/xt,    193   jf., 

200,  254,  255,  256. 
Ilapddoais,  194. 

Paranoia,  as  an  explanation  of  the  vi- 
sions of  Jesus,  165. 
Parisian  magic  papyrus,  86,  96,  n.,  98. 
Parthenogenesis,  human,  30. 
liapdtvos,  88,  n. 
Paschal  lamb   and   the   "dying  god," 

263,  n. 
Passover,  244;  ceremonies  at,  198;  and 

Massoth,  198. 
Paton,  Dr.W.  R.,  on  the  crucifixion,  293. 
Patriarchs,  as  signs  of  the  zodiac,  the, 

106,  «.,  239,  ».;  parthenogenetic  con- 
ceptions of,  41,  n. 
Paulus,    explanation    of    annunciation, 

25,  n.,  113. 
Pavement,  the,  243,  244. 
Peter,  234,  235,  236,  237,  238. 
Petra,  235,  238,  240. 
Petrie,  Dr.,  W.  M.  F.,  on  "Jes-iris" 

(Osiris),  68. 
Pfleiderer,  on  the  Christian  Eucharist, 

203. 
Phallic  emblems,  279. 
Phallicism,  279. 
Phereda  (Pheredet),  124,  131. 
Philo,   on  Karabas,   258,   259;  on  the 

Messiah,  82;  on  the  name  Jesus,  63,  n. 
Philo  Judxus,  on  birth  of  patriarchs, 

41,  n.',  on  Pilate,  240,  n. 
Pilate,  240,  241,  242. 
Pillar  of  heaven,  136. 
Pinches,  Dr.,  on  meaning  of  Ea  (Aa), 

127. 
Pinhas  the  robber,  233. 
Pisciculi,  122,  129. 
Piscina,  129. 
Plants  sprung  from  the  blood  of   the 

dying  god,  318,  n. 
Plautus,  on  crucifixion,  289. 
Pleiades  and  Peleiades,  344. 
Pleiades,  the,  323,  325;  as  the  women 

round  the  cross,  342,  344. 
Pleroma,  86. 
Plummer,   Dr.,  on  cave  and  manger, 

36,  n. 


354 


INDEX 


Plutarch,  on  purification,  195,  n.;  on 
sculpture  at  Sais,  16;  on  vocalisa- 
tion of  Osiris,  68,  n. 

Prsetorium,  243,  ».,  244. 

Pre-Christian  Christ  and  Jesus-cults,  80. 

Presentation  in  the  temple,  44. 

Pritchard,  Dr.  C,  on  the  star  of  na- 
tivity, 50. 

Hpo86T7)s  (traitor),  applied  to  Judas, 
200,  255  Jf. 

Prospassaleuein,  288. 

Proteus- Janus,  234. 

Psalm  22,  interpretations  of,  81;  its 
mythical  exposition,  338^. 

Puranas,  14. 

Puranic  stories,  lateness  of,  79,  n. 

Purification  in  the  mysteries,  195. 

Purim,  feast  of,  261,  262,  263. 

Quincy,  T.  de,  on  Judas  Iscariot,  256. 

Rabbinical  psychology  and  abnormal 
conceptions,  28;  stories  about  the  pa- 
triarchs, 134. 

Radau,  Dr.,  on  Istar's  visit  to  Hades, 
262,  n.;  on  the  resurrection  of  Tam- 
muz,  316,  n. 

Ramsay,  Sir  W.,  on  the  date  of  birth  of 
Jesus,  92,  116,  331. 

Reinach,  S.,  on  Barabbas,  256,  257,  258, 
259,  260;  on  the  cross,  283;  on  the 
empty  tomb,  311;  on  Esus  (Hesus), 
69;  on  young  man  who  fled,  etc.,  226. 

Renan,  on  Golgotha,  278,  n. 

Resurrection  of  the  Buddha,  322. 

Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  320. 

Reveille,  on  the  Magi,  48. 

Rig-Veda,  on  birth  of  Agni,  31. 

Ritual  for  birthday  of  Krishna,  sources 
of,  39,  n. 

Ritual  murder,  sham,  203,  n. 

Robertson,  Mr.  J.  M.,  on  the  ascension, 
325,  326;  on  Bethlehem,  91;  on  birth 
of  Jesus,  38;  on  the  birth  of  John  the 
Baptist,  125;  on  the  cock  crowing, 
239;  on  the  cross,  282,  283,  285,  «.; 
on  the  crown  of  thorns,  274,  275;  on 
the  crucifixion,  292;  on  the  descent  to 
Hades,  306;  on  the  discourse  with  the 
doctors  of  the  law,  61;  on  the  divine 
birth,  32;  on  the  entry  into  Jerusa- 
lem, 167;  on  the  expulsion  of  the  tra- 
ders, 176;  on  Joseph,  16;  on  Joshua- 
(Jesus-)  cults,  82;  on  Judas  Iscariot, 


25°»  251;  on  lateness  of  Puranic 
stories,  79,  «.;  on  Mary,  3,  10;  on 
Messiah  Ben  David,  80,  ».;  on  a 
Mexican  "Eucharist,"  204;  on  Mith- 
ra's  mother,  13;  on  Peter,  234,  235, 
236;  on  the  seamless  tunic,  294,  295; 
on  the  shepherds,  43;  on  Simon  of 
Cyrene,  276;  on  the  temptation  of 
Jesus,  136;  on  the  two  thieves,  294. 
Roman  year,  beginning  of,  236. 

Sacaea,  feast  of  the,  261,  264,  270. 

Sacra  of  the  mystery-cults,  the,  197. 

Sacraments  in  the  worship  of  cult-gods, 
189. 

Sagitta,  as  a  lance,  343. 

Samothracian  mysteries,  4. 

Samson  (Shimshon),  276. 

Sanhedrin  and  the  trial  of  Jesus,  229, 
232. 

Saoshyant,  14;  birth  of,  41. 

Saturnalia,  261,  272,  273. 

"Saviours,"  228. 

Sayce,  Dr.  A.  H.,  on  David  as  Daoud, 
91, 92;  on  Istar's  visit  to  Hades,  262,  n. 

Schmiedel,  P.,  on  the  empty  tomb,  311; 
on  hallucinations,  163,  n.;  on  "Mary," 
9,  98,  ».;  on  the  reading  of  Matthew 
27  :  16,  268;  on  visions,  163,  n. 

Schweitzer,  Dr.  A.,  on  the  ascription  of 
paranoia  to  Jesus,  165,  n. 

Scorpion  (constellation),  as  the  enemy  of 
the  sun,  the,  343,  n. 

Seamless  tunic,  the,  294. 

Semitic  kings  in  the  role  of  Tammuz, 
262,  n. 

Sentius  Saturninus,  331. 

Set,  315,  324,  n. 

Seydel,  R.,  on  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  132; 
on  the  blessing  of  Jesus  by  Simeon 
and  Anna,  46;  on  the  descent  of  the 
Buddha  to  hell,  306,  ».;  on  the  di- 
vision of  the  clothes  of  Jesus,  295,  n.; 
on  the  presents  made  to  the  young 
Buddha,  53. 

Sham  ritual  murder,  203. 

Sheol,  meaning  of  name,  303,  n. 

Shepherds,  the,  43. 

Sib-Zi-Anna,  247. 

Signs  of  zodiac,  168;  number  of,  71, 
ior,  105,  106,  119,  122. 

Simeon  Ben  Azzai,  21. 

Simeon  the  Levite,  44. 

Simon  Bar-jonas,  236. 


INDEX 


355 


Simon  of  Cyrene,  276. 

2iv5<J)p  (Sindon),  219,  226. 

Smith,  Prof.  W.  B.,  on  the  derivation  of 
name  Jesus,  71;  on  Gethsemane,  209, 
210;  on  Jesus-cults,  83;  on  Judas  Is- 
cariot,  252,  253;  onNazoraean,  95;  on 
the  rescript  of  Maximus,  332;  on  the 
young  man  who  fled,  etc.,  218,  225, 

3i4- 
"So  and  So,"  21. 
Soden,  Prof,  von,  on  derivation  of  the 

Jessaioi,  84. 
2o)Trip[a,  206. 
Soul  of  deceased  remains  near  corpse, 

305- 

Spiritual  body,  the,  320. 

Stable-birth  in  myth,  the,  31. 

Star,  the,  50. 

Srau/xta,  meaning  of,  in  N.  T.,  288. 

Stauros,  286. 

Stephens,  Mr.,  on  the  cross,  282. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  on  annunciation  and 
conception,  25,  27;  on  the  baptism  of 
Jesus,  no  Jf.;  on  the  burial  of  Jesus, 
312;  on  Galatians  4:4,  27,  ».;  on 
Hegelianism,  28;  on  the  Magi,  46;  on 
the  massacre  of  the  children,  55;  on 
the  shepherds,  43,  n.;  on  the  tempta- 
tion of  Jesus,  133  jf.\  on  the  trans- 
figuration of  Jesus,  154  /. 

Stroud,  Dr.  W.,  on  the  cause  of  the 
death  of  Jesus,  2g8,  «.,  299,  n. 

Substantia  and  accidentia,  190. 

Suddhodana,  45. 

Suffering  Messiah,  Jewish  references  to, 
213,  n. 

Supernatural  beings  and  modern  psy- 
chical research,  28. 

Svastika,  284. 

Synoptists,  on  the  Eucharist,  181  Jf.;  on 
the  transfiguration,  162  ff. 

Tabor,  Mount,  140. 

Tacitus,  on  Pilate,  241. 

Tabeb,  22. 

Talmud,  the,  12;  on  the  evidence  of 
shepherds,  44,  n.;  on  the  flight  into 
Egypt,  ss,  93;  on  the  genealogy  of 
Jesus,  21;  on  the  high  priests,  246;  on 
the  trial  of  Jesus,  232,  233. 

Tammuz  (Adonis),  279,  303,  310,  n.\ 
ascension  of,  324, «.;  cave  of,  at  Beth- 
lehem, 31,  ».,  91;  resurrection  of, 
316,  n. 


Td<pos,  300,  301. 

Tathagata,  157. 

Tau,  283,  284. 

Taurobolia,  203. 

Temptation,  the,  133;  the  scene  of  the, 

140. 
TerfKecrrai,  296,  297. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuete,  112. 
Theosophists,  on  psychical  body,  224. 
Thieves,  the  two,  293. 
Thomas  Aquinas  and  transubstantia- 

tion,  190,  n. 
Thomas  (=  Gemini?),  238,  n. 
The  three  days,  308,  309,  311. 
Tiridates,  visit  of,  to  Nero,  49,  n. 
Tisdal,  Dr.  St.  Clair,  on  meaning  of 

Mithraic  sculpture,  319,  320. 
Tishtar,  168,  n. 
Toledoth   Jeschu,    on   the   flight   into 

Egypt,  55. 
Touching  sacra  in  the  mysteries,  the, 

200. 
Transfiguration,  the,  154;  Jensen  on  the, 

74- 
Transubstantiation  and   theophagy  in 

Mexico  and  India,  189;  in  the  Euchar- 
ist, 190. 

Tregelles,  Dr.,  on  the  reading  of  Mat- 
thew 27  :  16,  266. 

Trials,  the,  228. 

Twelve  disciples  and  the  signs  of  the 
zodiac,  the,  238,  n. 

Underhill,  Miss  E.,  on  the  transfigura- 
tion, 164/. 
Unicorn,  see  Monokeros. 
Usener,  on  the  flight  into  Egypt,  54,  n. 

Vardans,  the,  and  the  Armenian  War, 

14. 
Varro,  on  human  sacrifice,  272. 
Vasudeva,  14,  76. 
Vasudeva,  journey  of,  39,  n. 
Verrall,  Dr.,  on  meaning  of  \afiirp6s, 

276,  n. 
Via  Dolorosa,  Niemojewski's,  345. 
Virginity  of  goddess-mothers,  13. 
"Virgin,"  meaning  of,  in  pagan  cults, 

13,  »•»  38,  n. 
Virgin-harlot,  13,  n. 
Virgin  of  the  zodiac,  the,  15,  48,  341, 

344- 
Vishnu,  66,  68. 
Visvamitra,  60. 


356 


INDEX 


Vitalism,  190. 

Voigt,  Dr.,  on  the  Magi,  49. 

Volkmar,  312. 

Volney,  on  the  divine  birth,  32,  n. 

V  sikkarti,  253, 

Weber,  Prof.,  on  early  Christianity  in 
India,  307;  on  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity into  India,  76. 

Weinel,  Dr.,  98,  n. 

Wellhausen,  Prof.  J.,  on  the  young  man, 
etc.,  219. 

Whitney,  Dr.  W.  D.,  on  derivation  of 
Agnus,  336, 

Wilford,  Lieutenant,  on  interpolations 
of  Biblical  episodes  into  Krishna 
stories,  78. 

Winckler,  Dr.  H.,  on  Nazareth,  98,  103. 

Wine-press,  210,  211,  212. 

World-tree,  the,  102,  n.,  241. 


Xisuthros,  73. 

Xpurrds  and  Xp7j<rr6s,  75,  n. 

Xiilon  {&\ov),  286. 

Young  man  at  the  tomb,  the,  222. 
Young  man  who  fled,  etc.,  the,  218,  225. 

Zacharias,  20,  25,  2g. 

Zahn,  Dr.,  on  the  reading  of  Matthew 

21  :  7,  172,  «.;  on  the  young  man,  etc., 

225. 
Zalmuk,  261,  n. 
Zarathustra,  seed  of,  14;  the  temptation 

of,  141  f. 
Zealots,  260. 

Zebulon  as  Capricornus,  105. 
Zimmern,  Dr.,  on  kings  who  played  the 

part  of  Tammuz,  262,  n. 
Zodiac,  signs  of,  71,  «.,  101,  105,  106, 

119,  122,  168,  238,  n. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ow 

D*V    AND    TO     -1°  S°  CENTS  ON  TH„  tfNALTY 
OVERDUe.  *'°°    ON    THE    sevent°URTH 


LD21-loom.7,,39(402 


s) 


yc  4064 r 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


